Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL.

Ordered,
That, in the case of the Glasgow Corporation Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 he suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if this is the proper time to deal with my Amendment—in Clause 18, page 11, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (2).

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member objects, we must postpone the consideration of the Bill.

Mr. HARDIE: I do not object to the Bill. I only wanted to give my reasons for not moving the Amendment.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 223 and 243 he suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Dundee, Broughty Ferry, and District Traction Order Confirmation Bill,

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Ayr Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,

Read a Second time; considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Falkirk and District Traction Order Confirmation Bill.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Major COLFOX: Can we have some explanation for this indecent hurry over these Bills?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no indecent hurry. It is quite a usual form of procedure.

Major COLFOX: Can we have some explanation why it is necessary on this occasion?

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Robert Young): It is necessary in order that these Bills may be sent to another place and receive the Royal Assent before the House adjourns. There are precedents for this procedure which I can show the hon. and gallant Member if he desires.

Major COLFOX: I am not suggesting that there are no precedents. What I want to know is why this House cannot give them due consideration.

Mr. YOUNG: The hon. and gallant Member has been long enough in the House to know that this is a usual practice at this time of the year.

Major COLFOX: We are still without any explanation.

Mr. YOUNG: It is to save time and expense to the promoters.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time; considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, and Dumbartonshire Education Authorities Order Confirmation Bill,

Read a Second time; considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Sir JOHN POWER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement about the present relationship of the great Powers to Tangier?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The protocol amending the Tangier Convention of 1923 was signed in Paris on the 25th of July, 1928. It has received the assent of all the parties to the 1923 Convention and was brought into force on the 14th of January last.

Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position of the United States Government in regard to this matter?

Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has been reached by the League of Nations Council with regard to further proposed inquiries connected with the problem of the traffic in women and children in the East; and will he consider making representations that an Indian representative should be placed on this committee?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The matter was considered by the Council at its meeting in June, and it was decided to communicate with the Governments of countries in the Near East, Middle East, and Far East whose territories were not visited in the course of the previous inquiry, and to ascertain whether they would be prepared to give their consent and co-operation to a continuation of the inquiry. If their replies are favourable the composition of the Special Body of Experts will be considered by the Council, and I would confer with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India as to the desirability of including an Indian representative.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any replies have yet been received from any of these countries?

Mr. HENDERSON: Not yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITTEE OF CONCILIATION.

Mr. COCKS: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the terms of reference of the proposed committee of verification and conciliation;
what it is to verify and whom it is to conciliate; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards it?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The general object of the proposed committee is to deal with questions which may arise in connection with the observance of the articles of the Treaty of Versailles providing for the demilitarisation of the Rhineland; to verify any allegations which may be put forward of violations of those articles; and to provide machinery for conciliating any conflicts of opinion in regard to such alleged violations. For the rest, I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 22nd of July to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Wise).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has my right hon. Friend seen a leading article in the "Manchester Guardian" this morning; and, secondly, if the Rhineland—

Mr. SPEAKER: A Minister cannot be responsible for what appears in the "Manchester Guardian."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I put it in that way because I did not want to take up the time of the House in retailing the "Manchester Guardian" article. I thought it would be more interesting—

Mr. SPEAKER: It would be quite out of order to read a leading article.

Mr. COCKS: I presume that in discussing this question at Geneva—the committee of conciliation—the Foreign Minister will not commit the country to any decision without the sanction of this House afterwards?

Mr. HENDERSON: The first part of the supplementary question is inaccurate, because I do not know that the question will be discussed at Geneva. I have been struggling for a fortnight to find a place for the discussion, and I have not got it yet.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not true that we are not committed on this question? The right hon. Gentleman's reply last week was to that effect.

Mr. HENDERSON: I have not said anything inconsistent with my last reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT (TRAINED RESERVES).

Mr. COCKS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the question of trained reserves; and whether the Government is prepared to instruct its representatives on the Preparatory Commission to support the proposition that trained reserves should be included in the sum total of armaments to be limited?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: It is too early as yet to say precisely what instructions will be issued to the British representative at the next meeting of the Preparatory Commission, for which no date has at present been fixed.

Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is impossible to discuss or bring about any disarmament, so far as land armaments are concerned, without bringing in the question of trained reserves?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH CLAIMS.

Mr. SMITHERS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, when discussing matters with the representatives of the Soviet Government, he will press the claims of British investors in Russian securities, with a view to obtaining some payment of outstanding debts or at least recognition of them?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I can assure the hon. Member that the interests of this class, as of all other classes, of British claimants will be borne in mind in any negotiations which may be entered into as a result of the invitation sent to the Soviet Government.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the Secretary of State give this House a pledge that a recognition of these debts will be a condition of the resumption of diplomatic relations?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, Sir.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether, when the previous treaty was drawn up, full provision was not made in it for the satisfaction of these private claims?

Mr. HENDERSON: That is so.

Mr. HAYCOCK: May I ask how many of the original investors hold any of this stock, and whether it is not possible to buy £1,000,000 of it for 4d. in the London market to-day?

Mr. SMITHERS: Thanks to the revolution.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC RELATION.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has yet been received from the Soviet Government to the Note sent by him on behalf of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain suggesting the despatch by the Soviet Government of a representative to discuss the question of the resumption of diplomatic relations; and, if so, whether he is in a position to make any statement to the House?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The reply of the Soviet Government has not yet reached me although from reports in the Press it is apparently on the way. I am consequently not in a position to add anything to my previous statements on the subject.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May we take it that, if a reply is received before Friday, the right hon. Gentleman will make a statement to the House, and, if not, that he will cause it to be published?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not quite gather what the question is.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May we take it that, if the reply comes to hand before Friday, the right hon. Gentleman will make a statement to this House, and, if not, that he will cause it to be published?

Mr. HENDERSON: The invitation was to send a representative. I gather from the Press that a representative is coming. If I get the reply that he is coming, I cannot give the House any information.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: May I ask whether, if the reply from the Soviet Government should be in the direction indicated in the Press this morning, the right hon. Gentleman will take exception to the words. [Interruption.]

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I give notice to the right hon. Gentleman that I will repeat the question on Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECT'S DEATH, HAVANA.

Mr. EDE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any person has been arrested for the killing of Thomas Hunt in Havana on 8th June last; and, if so, when it is anticipated that such person will be brought to trial?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: A man is under arrest and the trial is expected to take place next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND RUSSIA.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since both Russia and China were signatories to the Kellogg Pact, which outlaws war, he will take steps, in consultation with other signatories to the Pact, to enforce the penalties provided against the country which commits the first act of war after relations have been broken off?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, the Kellogg Pact contains no provisions for enforcing penalties against a country violating its terms, but merely states in the Preamble that
any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty.
While, therefore, no action in the sense suggested arises under the provisions of the Pact, I have reason to hope that the danger of war will be averted, having received through the Chinese Charge d'Affaires here an assurance from the Chinese Government that they are most anxious for a pacific solution of their dispute with the Soviet Government. They state that they will themselves take no aggressive action, and are ready for a, round-table conference with representatives of the Soviet Government, and that if the latter should resort to forcible measures—a contingency of which they have as yet no evidence—the Chinese Government will appeal to the League of Nations under the terms of Article 17 of the Covenant.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the case that the Chinese did exactly what we did in the case of Arcos in 1927?

Mr. SMITHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while these negotiations are going on, the Soviet Government are issuing official slogans, "Down with the Kellogg Pact"?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Labour party still maintains—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (VISAS, CZECHO-SLOVAKIA).

Mr. REMER: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the difficulty caused to English travellers to Czechoslovakia being required to have their passports visaed; if he is aware that this is only required in the case of Hungarian, Russian and English travellers; and if he will make representations to that Government upon the matter?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir; negotiations have long been in progress with a view to removing this difficulty. I regret that no reliable information is available as to the requirements of the Czechoslovak Government in respect of nationals of foreign states. Every effort is being made to bring the present negotiations with the Czechoslovak Government to a successful, conclusion.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does this particular question apply only to English travellers or to British travellers?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PRE-WAR PEXSIONERS.

Commander SOUTHBY: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the hardships being experienced by naval pre-War pensioners; and whether he will consider the case of those men who volunteered for service in 1914 but were refused on account of age with a view to increasing their pensions to the present-day scale?

The PARLIAMENTARY-SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): Pre-War pensioners who were over age for War service are eligible, if they satisfy the usual conditions, for benefits corresponding to those of the Pensions Increase Acts, 1920 and 1924. It was stated quite
clearly in 1924 that the increased benefits granted to pre-War pensioners were final and that no further legislation was contemplated.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICERS' PAY.

Commander SOUTHBY: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Government can not see their way to granting marriage allowances to naval officers, and that the pay of naval officers at present is subject to reduction by reason of any fall in the cost of living, he will consider stabilising the pay of naval officers at their existing rates?

Mr. AMMON: The rates of pay of Naval officers, in common with those of officers in the Army and Air Force, are, under an arrangement approved by His Majesty's Government in 1919, subject to revision to the extent of 20 per cent. of the rates then approved according to the rise or fall in the cost of living, and I regret that I can hold out no hope of the pay of Naval officers being stabilised at their existing rates.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Government deal with these officers a little more generously than the late Government and grant these allowances?

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Mr. MOSES: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship occasioned to the younger men of the Navy by the operation of the marriage allowance limit; and will he consider the reduction of the age limit from 25 to 21, at which such allowances shall be paid in future?

Mr. AMMON: I am aware of the marriage allowance age limit rule, and I regret that I do not see my way to recommend any alteration.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCKYARDS (DISCHAEGES).

Mr. MOSES: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a large immediate reduction of men from His Majesty's dockyards is contemplated; and can he give an assurance that there will be no discharges during the present financial year as apart from those who may be casually employed?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; as regards the second part I
would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Central Portsmouth, on the 4th of July last (OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 248).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is the answer in the negative as regards the immediate reduction or the large?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Both.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVY WEEKS (PROCEEDS).

Mr. KELLY: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there has been any distribution of the proceeds of the Navy weeks held at the Home ports in 1928; and, if so, has this been approved by the Admiralty?

Mr. AMMON: The distribution of the proceeds of the Navy weeks held at the Home ports in August, 1928, was published in detail in Fleet Order Number 45 on the 4th of January last, and a copy of the order was communicated to the Press and was reprinted for posting on notice boards in His Majesty's ships. The distribution was decided by the three Commanders-in-Chief as this notice indicates.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANTEEN SURPLUS.

Mr. KELLY: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there has been a distribution of the surplus revenue from naval canteen trading during 1928; and what is the sum disposed of?

Mr. AMMON: The distribution has not been made, as complete reports from the Fleet containing recommendations in regard to the disposal of the surplus are not yet available. The amount is £11,900.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANDS (CIVIL ENGAGEMENTS).

Mr. AYLES: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many civilian engagements were taken by naval bands during the past 12 months; what remuneration was received for such engagements; and how much was received by the bandsmen for their personal use?

Mr. AMMON: The information as regards Royal Marine bands on shore is as follows:
Engagements, 172. Payment received, £11,844, from which general expenses are met. Remuneration to bandsmen, £8,766, from which the men meet their personal expenses.
No similar information is available for bands afloat.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the length of these engagements, and whether these bands are allowed to accept engagements that under-cut civilian rates of pay?

Mr. AMMON: The first part I cannot answer, but, so far as the second part is concerned, they in no case under-cut civilian bands.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Can these naval bandsmen belong to the Musicians' Union?

Oral Answers to Questions — His MAJESTY'S SHIP "EXETER."

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of his Department to issue instructions retarding the construction of the new cruiser His Majesty's Ship "Exeter"?

Mr. ALEXANDER: No, Sir. A statement on the Naval construction programme will be made later to-day by the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUXILIARY SERVICES (PENSIONS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now explain the scheme dealing with the making of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service a pensionable one; and whether the pension will be retrospective?

Mr. MOSES: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been made with regard to the claim for pensions by the officers and men employed on tanker and other auxiliary services; and whether he will communicate such decision to the House?

Mr. AMMON: A memorial to His Majesty The King in Council has been drafted embodying a scheme of retiring allowances applicable to officers holding Board of Trade certificates employed in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service. It is hoped to present the memorial at the earliest opportunity. The question of pensions for men has not arisen.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVONPORT DOCKYARD EMPLOYES (ESTABLISHMENT).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the disappointment caused in the works department, Devonport Dock yard, where a number of men whose ser vice ranges from 27 to 31 years and who
are nearing the age of 50, aspire in vain to establishment; and whether, seeing that a number of skilled labourers have retired since the War and no workmen in the works department have been established in their places, he will consider the claims of these men of long service to establishment?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am aware of the disappointment referred to by the hon. Member, but I am afraid it is common to large numbers of workmen in all departments of the Dockyards. The present position is largely a legacy of the reductions during the post-War period but I must point out that the Dockyard establishment system has never provided established places for all workmen of long service and I cannot give any undertaking to make such changes as would ensure this.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the ideal of the right hon. Gentleman at the Admiralty to make this service an established service as far as possible?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have already pointed out that we have to deal with the position as we find it. We are dealing with the reductions since the War, and its quite impossible in these circumstances to keep to the old percentage of transfers of hired men to the established service.

Mr. MOSES: Is the percentage of one in eight being taken into consideration?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would prefer to have notice as to the exact percentage, but my recollection is that that is what is now being followed.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICERS' SERVANTS (PENSIONERS).

Sir B. FALLE: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in view of the fact that entries of pensioners as officers' servants at Whale Island will commence in a few days, approval can now be given for pensioner officers' steward ratings to be included in the scheme?

Mr. AMMON: This question is still under consideration and the local naval authorities are being consulted.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Sir B. FALLE: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the naval pension payable to the widow,
under 40 years of age, of an able seaman who lost his life with His Majesty's submarine 47, is 10s. 6d. per week; that all naval ratings are compelled to contribute towards the widows', orphans,' and old age contributory pensions; and, seeing that the widow of a civilian who is killed whilst at his work is eligible for an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act, whether he will consider an increase to the present naval scales of pensions to widows in order to prevent the loss of the compulsory contributory widows' pension?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The answers to the first and second parts of the question are in the affirmative, subject to the qualification that 10s. 6d. a week is the minimum rate of pension. A widow left with one, or more, of the rating's children to support is eligible for a pension of 17s. 6d. a week, with an allowance of 5s. a week in addition in respect of each child. As the hon. Baronet is aware, the principle underlying the last part of his question is one which affects all the Fighting Services, and the late Government, after careful examination, decided against this principle. I am looking into the matter but I can promise nothing.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRACTS (BRITISH TENDERS).

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give particulars of any contracts entered into by him with non-British firms abroad for the supply of articles for His Majesty's Navy; whether, before placing such orders, he obtained tenders from British manufacturers; and, in the event of his having done so, what were his reasons for not accepting such British tenders?

Mr. AMMON: It is the invariable practice of the Admiralty to obtain tenders from British manufacturers and to give them a substantial measure of preference. I am afraid I cannot give the details asked for as to actual contracts, but I can assure the hon. Member that where adequate British competition exists contracts have not been given to foreign firms.

Mr. DAY: Were the majority of these contracts not placed by the previous Government?

Mr. AMMON: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIZE AND EQUIPMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 31.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in deciding on the size and equipment of the British Navy, it is the intention of the Government to rule out entirely the United States of America as a possible enemy; and whether instructions to this effect have been given to the Admiralty?

Mr. ALEXANDER: While it would not be in the public interest to give any indication as to the necessarily secret instructions which guide the Admiralty in matters of defence, I think I shall not be accused of an indiscretion if I repeat, as interpreting the attitude of the present Government, the words of the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who said on 8th February, 1928, that
preparation for a war with the United States has never been and never will he the basis of our policy in anything.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (FILM).

Mr. DAY: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the amount paid to the film company which produced the cinematograph film made on behalf of the Empire Marketing Board; and whether this film was entirely produced in Great Britain?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Lunn): No sum has yet been paid to the film company which is in course of completing a cinematograph film on behalf of the Empire Marketing Board. The film has been entirely produced in Great Britain.

Mr. DAY: What is the commitment? How much are they entitled to pay?

Mr. LUNN: I have answered the hon. Member's question. I have nothing further to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

DEFENCE FORCE ORDINANCE.

Mr. AYLES: 33.
asked the Under- Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the Conscription Act for Kenya has been put into operation; whether he is aware of the opposition that exists in that Colony to the Act; and whether, before anything further is done to operate it, he will institute an inquiry into the desirability of its continuance?

Mr. LUNN: My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is giving careful consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion that an inquiry should be held, but in view of the fact that the Ordinance has been on the Statute Book for two years and actually in operation for more than one he is not disposed, without further consideration, to ask the Acting Governor to institute any such inquiry.
As the reply to the other parts of the question is necessarily of considerable length, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

My Noble Friend is informed by the Acting Governor of Kenya that the extent to which the Ordinance has been applied to date is as follows:

The commandant and staff officer and a Central Defence Committee have been appointed. Defence Force districts have been formed, and local Defence Committees appointed. Rifle ranges have been constructed in districts preparatory to training which it is proposed to carry out when the regulations which are being drafted under Section 31 of the Ordinance have been formulated and approved.

The Acting Governor reports that it has been decided to make the following exemptions under Section 13 (2) of the Ordinance:

A. Ministers of religion who have undergone a ceremony of ordination in a recognised church.
B. Duly accredited members of missionary bodies except from liability to perform certain services of a non- combatant nature under conditions accepted by Protestant and Catholic leaders.
C. Judges.
D. Members of the Executive Council and the Legislative Council.
E. Officers and non-commissioned officers of the King's African Rifles and the Police and Prisons Services.
F. Officers of the King's African Rifles Reserve of Officers.
G. Persons in receipt of disability or wound pensions from Armed Forces of the Crown.
1280
H. Persons discharged for misconduct from such Forces.
I. Provincial and District Officers and Magistrates subject to certain conditions now under examination.
J. Such persons as the Governor in Council may exempt on conscientious grounds.

A Sub-Committee of the Executive Council has been appointed to consider applications for exemption. The Acting Governor states also that as the numbers enrolled now amount to 5,172, it is not intended to reconsider certain Sections of the Ordinance as originally proposed, and that no necessity has yet arisen to enforce the penalty clause.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT OF GIRLS, CENTRAL KAVIRONDO.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received a Report upon the allegation that gangs of girls from the ages of 10 to 16 years were called out for the collection of thatching material in the North Gem area of Central Kavirondo, involving some of them in a daily journey of 30 miles; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. LUNN: Yes, Sir, My noble friend is informed by the Acting Governor of Kenya that an official native headman illegally ordered gangs of girls to collect and carry thatching grass for use in the construction of certain rest-houses which were being built by the Local Native Council of Central Kavirondo District for the accommodation of elders of the tribe. This was done without the knowledge of the District Commissioner and in spite of the fact that the headman well knew that orders had been issued prohibiting the compulsory employment of women. As soon as the matter came to the knowledge of the District Commissioner, he gave the headman immediately explicit instructions to pay off the women and to complete the work with paid male labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the
present state of agriculture the production in the third year of 1,000 tons of potash by Mr. Novamesky's company is inadequate to the urgent needs of British farmers; whether he is aware that the British plans that were laid before the late Secretary of State for the Colonies undertook to produce 100,000 tons of potash in the first year and 1,000,000 tons within five years; and on what grounds were these plans rejected?

Mr. LUNN: Among the several tenders submitted to the late Government at different stages there was one that contemplated an annual output considerably greater than the minimum production laid down in the concession as actually granted. The tenderers were, however, unable at the time to furnish the evidence required as to their financial resources.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the hon. Member give the House the assurance that nothing will be done during the Recess to ratify this agreement, before we have a chance of debating it?

Mr. LUNN: I cannot give any assurance upon such a matter.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Are we then bound under this to a world monopoly of this syndicate for the next 75 years?

Mr. LUNN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should blame his own Government.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I have done so.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration that the only ingredient in artificial fertilisers likely to cause a rise in price is potash?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we discussed this question in the closing days of the last Parliament?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: It was not properly discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the despatch of the Governor of
Ceylon on the recommendations of the Donoughmore Commission will be published; whether he will now state the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to reform of the constitution of Ceylon, or, if the Secretary of State is still considering the matter, will he give an undertaking that no action will be taken before Parliament reassembles after the Recess; and whether steps are being taken to prolong the life of the existing legislature in Ceylon?

Mr. LUNN: The Governor's despatch is now under consideration, and it is the intention that it should be published in due course with the Secretary of State's reply, when the latter is in the Governor's hands. Steps are being taken to prolong the life of the Legislative Council, which otherwise would be dissolved in September. It will clearly be impossible for any constitutional change to be carried into effect before the House reassembles.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do I understand that the Governor's despatch and the reply of the Secretary of State will probably be published during the Parliamentary Recess?

Mr. LUNN: I cannot say that at the moment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But we are certain they will be published?

Mr. LUNN: I cannot give any guarantee just now, but, if the right hon. Gentleman puts down a question to me, I will give him an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of Sir Samuel Wilson on the agreement reached by him at Nairobi regarding constitutional changes in East Africa will be published; whether these proposals have received the support of the Governors of Tanganyika and Uganda, as well as of the acting Governor in Kenya; and when the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to these proposals will be declared?

Mr. LUNN: My Noble Friend is not yet in a position to say exactly when Sir Samuel Wilson's report will be made public, but he hopes that it will be possible for it to be published early in
September simultaneously in this country and in East Africa. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree that pending publication it would not be appropriate to reply to the second part of the question. A statement as to the action which His Majesty's Government propose to take will be made in due course after the publication of the report, but my Noble Friend is not able at the moment to give a more definite reply.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Am I to gather from the last part of the reply that this statement of the Government's intentions will be made in Parliament, or outside?

Mr. LUNN: I am not in a position to give a definite statement, but I think I may say that it is likely to be made in Parliament.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: Is it not the fact that the ex-Secretary of State for the Colonies said in this House that Sir Samuel Wilson had no power to reach any agreement whatever regarding constitutional arrangements?

Mr. LUNN: I do not think I have said anything contrary to that opinion in my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (MINING CAMPS).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has yet approached the directors of the big copper-mining companies in this country interested in the opening up of the new copper-field in Northern Rhodesia regarding the provision of hospitals and schools and the technical staff required for each of such institutions at the mining camps; and whether the companies have agreed to make such provision, either themselves or on a basis of partnership with the Government.

Mr. LUNN: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given on 8th July to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle). No such action as he suggests has been taken. The Secretary of State considers that in the first place the views of his Advisory Committees and of the Protectorate Government should be obtained. This is being done.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, as very large contracts are now being entered into in this country for the development of this new property, it is most essential that it should not be left to the Government of Northern Rhodesia, which is not in touch with the principals concerned, to make the definite arrangements regarding these matters'?

Mr. LUNN: I agree with the first part of the supplementary question, but before any action is taken or any definite statement made, we must have further information from the Governor.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA LOAN.

Mr. TINNE: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the undertaking to exempt investors not resident in British Guiana from Colonial Income Tax in the prospectus of the British Guiana loan issue attaches the same meaning to the expression "resident" as the United Kingdom and Irish Free State Inland Revenue does; and, if not, will he have the word defined in order that investors may be freed from possible misapprehension?

Mr. LUNN: The law of British Guiana which determines what constitutes "residence" for Income Tax purposes is closely similar to the law in force in the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State. I am sending the hon. Member a note of the exact provisions.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMITTEE.

Mr. AYLES: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can see his way to enlarge the African Liquor Control Committee by giving representation to temperance organisations interested in the promotion of temperance among native races?

Mr. LUNN: The functions of the Committee in question are merely to advise upon the quality of gin when it is sought to add any particular brand to the approved Schedule of admissible brands of patent-still gin, and in the circumstances it is difficult to see what advantage would be gained by adding representatives of organisations which can have no practical
experience of gin manufacture or marketing. I might add that the Committee now very rarely meets, as applications for adding any new brands are infrequent.

Mr. AYLES: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1920 there were 125,000 gallons of spirits imported into the Gold Coast and that in 1928 there were 1,164,000 gallons imported, and does he not consider that an unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL LAW.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any information about the working of the postal ballot at elections in the country districts of Australia; if so, whether this information can be made available for Members; and, if he has not the information, will it be possible to obtain a Report upon the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): Information on this subject will be found in the Australian legislation relating to electoral matters, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a list of the Acts in question with references to the relevant Sections, and also certain Returns and Reports which may be of interest to him.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do these Reports contain any opinions on the working of the system?

Mr. PONSONBY: I am afraid I have not digested them myself.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the question of two-Member constituencies will come within the scope of the proposed electoral reform inquiry?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to the terms of reference, but I can assure the hon. Member that his point will be borne in mind.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the inquiry into the franchise law, he will include in the subjects for consideration the question of compulsory voting on the lines already in force in Australia?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that the question of compulsory voting would properly come within the scope of the proposed inquiry.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if everyone who had a vote used it, we should get a much fairer idea as to the views of the electorate?

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN HARVEST (BRITISH WORKERS).

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 42.
asked the Under- Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many men went to Canada last year under the Canadian harvesting scheme; how many have returned to this country; and whether it is his intention to put that scheme into operation this year?

Mr. PONSONBY: The number of men who went to Canada as harvesters last year was 8,449, and the number who returned to this country was 6,444, leaving 2,005 who remained in Canada. It is not proposed to put any scheme of this kind into operation this season.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (WOMEN).

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether openings exist in the Dominions for women immigrants; and, if there is a demand overseas for women from this country, what steps are being taken to meet the demand and to encourage migration, by financial assistance or otherwise, in this particular connection?

Mr. PONSONBY: Yes, Sir, and there is every indication that the demand especially for single women trained for household employment is practically unlimited. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is keenly alive to the importance of the migration of women. Free or assisted passages to the Dominions are available for women as well as men. Through the Women's Branch of the Oversea Settlement Department and local migration committees information is freely available, speakers for meetings are supplied, and free literature distributed. The Government has also co-operated in establishing domestic training centres in this country, and further centres are being opened. Arrangements are made in co-operation
with the Governments, voluntary organisations and private residents in the Dominions for the reception and aftercare of women. I am considering further methods of drawing attention to the openings for women, and the most effective means of stimulating this particular branch of migration.

Mr. BAKER: Can my hon. Friend give comparable figures for men and women since the passing of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922?

Mr. PONSONBY: Since the passing of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, 105,000 odd men have sailed and under 85,000 women.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

LOSS OF "CITY OF OTTAWA."

Captain BALFOUR: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps to ensure the adoption of any of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Air Ministry court of inquiry into the loss on 17th June of the cross-Channel air liner "City of Ottawa"; and, if so, which of these recommendations will be acted upon and when will such action take effect?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The Report is being examined, and the recommendations will be most carefully considered, but I am not yet in a position to state what action will be taken by the Air Ministry as a result.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 54.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his Department has reviewed the finding of the committee which inquired into the disaster to the air liner "City of Ottawa" on 17th June last, when seven lives were lost; whether he can state the number of hours the starboard engine had run in the machine before, as is stated in the Report, the studs of the big end bearing fractured under fatigue; and whether the Air Ministry concur in the statement in the committee's report that this mishap was of a type which is unavoidable?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer to the first part of the question is that the Report is now being carefully examined
in all its bearings; to the second part, that the aircraft had flown 126 hours from the time when the starboard engine was installed after complete overhaul up to the commencement of its last journey. As regards the last part of the question, the purport of the passage quoted from the Report is to exonerate Messrs. Napiers and Imperial Airways from any suggestion of negligence, and this finding the Air Ministry accept. The question whether any further precautions can be taken in future to guard against such mishaps as the failure of these studs is being actively pursued by all concerned.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement that the accident was unavoidable was based on the idea that the aircraft was three years old, and therefore obsolescent?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I am not aware of anything of the kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRSHIPS.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 53.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his Department has information as to the cause of the latest German rigid airship's failure to cross the Atlantic; and whether the engines of the two experimental airships are considered perfectly suitable in all respects for the forthcoming trials, or whether new-engines of greater horse-power should be installed in these airships before extended trials to Egypt and India are made?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer being unavoidably of some length, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply.

As regard the first part of the question, from the information that has been published it would appear that the cause of the breakdown of the engines in the "Graf Zeppelin" in May last was mainly due to "torsional resonance." This is a form of trouble which is apt to develop in engines and the question of obviating it has been under investigation at the Royal Aircraft Establishment during the past few years. A method has now been devised as the result of that investigation for predicting the speeds at which resonance is likely to occur for any given type of engine, so that running at that particular speed can be avoided.

As regards the second part, R.100 and R.101 are fitted with engines which have passed the airworthiness type test and I am fully satisfied that the engines are perfectly suitable for the flying trials at borne. I should prefer not to make any definite statement in regard to the long distance flights which have always been contemplated upon the successful completion of the home trials; it is safer to await the result of these latter trials before a final decision is reached in regard either to the exact nature of the long-distance flights or the equipment necessary for them.

Mr. MANDER: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if an opportunity can be afforded to Members of this House to participate in the first passenger flights of the airships R.100 and R.101?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The hon. Member's suggestion will be considered when the trials of the airships are approaching completion.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman give special consideration to the Opposition in the first trials?

Mr. WELLS: When are the trials expected to take place?

Mr. MONTAGUE: About the end of September.

Oral Answers to Questions — WADDON AERODROME (NOISE).

Mr. MELLER: 55.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the increased noise in the neighbourhood of the Waddon aerodrome occasioned by the low flying and noisy exhausts of the aeroplanes and to the increasing disturbance caused by week-end low flying; and whether he can take steps to reduce the nuisance for those who live in the vicinity of the aerodrome?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Complaints have been received from, time to time, but some increase of noise is the inevitable consequence of the increase of traffic to and from this very busy air port. In so far as it is due to the two causes mentioned by the hon. Member, I may say that experiments are being made with a view to the reduction of the noise of engine exhausts, and that dangerously low flying over houses renders a pilot
liable to prosecution by the police. I am afraid that it is difficult to do more to meet the hon. Member's object, but I am open to receive any practical suggestions.

Mr. MELLER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of introducing legislation to deal with the matter, and, in the meantime, will he use his personal influence with the authorities to mitigate the nuisance, which is having a great effect on the health of the adults and of the children of the district?

Mr. MONTAGUE: As much as can possibly be done is done to mitigate the nuisance.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation during the present Parliament to end or mend the House of Lords?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have not considered the question.

Mr. MANDER: Will the Prime Minister consider removing this picturesque relic to the British Museum?

HON MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must not make disrespectful remarks about the other place.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Mr. LATHAN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he can hold out any hope that time will be found this year for the consideration of legislation to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question will, of course, receive the very careful consideration of the Government, but, in view of the other urgent items of our programme, I cannot hold out any prospect of amending legislation during the present year. I may say, however, that it will be proposed in the autumn to provide for the continuance of the Rent Restrictions Acts in their present form by including them in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the weakness
of many of these provisions, many persons are deprived of the advantages of the Acts, and will he consider the introduction of a short amending Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: Such a Bill would have to be included in the general programme of the Session's work. At the moment, we do not see any chance of getting fresh legislation passed, but I should be glad to take an opportunity if it were afforded.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITTEE OF CIVIL RESEARCH.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to set up an economic advisory committee to advise the Government on economic matters; and whether he can make any statement as to the powers and functions of this body and name the persons he intends to invite to serve on it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I propose as necessity requires to refer general economic questions of major importance to the Committee of Civil Research. That body is a Committee under my chairmanship, and I propose that in future it should consist of a nucleus of Cabinet Ministers, to whom will be attached men and women who can best assist with whatever business is before it. Much of its work will be done by sub-committees, a number of which have already been constituted. When I have a little more leisure, I propose to consider how best to make this Committee useful as part of our machinery of government.

Sir C. CAYZER: In view of the very valuable work that a body of this nature has carried on in Germany during the past two or three years, in promoting schemes for the rationalisation of industry, can the Prime Minister say whether this Committee will be empowered to function in a similar capacity in this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I hope so. I think this Committee, properly constituted, and with proper terms of reference, would be one of the most useful parts of our machinery of government and administration.

Mr. BOOTHBY: May we take it that the idea of establishing a separate, permanent, economic general staff has been abandoned by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, not necessarily. That is covered by the last sentence of my reply.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: When the recommendations of these committees are made, will he carry them out, or will he ignore them, as in the case of the Balfour Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER: The case of the Balfour Commission is not a case in point, but the Balfour Commission Report has not been ignored. Quite obviously, the reports and recommendations of all these commissions and committees must be brought before the Government for the exercise of their judgment.

Major NATHAN: Will the Prime Minister say whether this Committee will be in permanent session to deal with economic matters generally, or whether it will be merely appointed for the purpose of ad hoc inquiries?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee itself will be in permanent session, if you like to use that term, just as the Committee of Imperial Defence is in permanent session, but the work of the Committee will be suggested, I hope ultimately, and given to it by the Departments and Ministers, including myself. It will be a very great convenience in government, and it will, therefore, not be a rigidly working Committee.

Mr. BRACKEN: Does the Prime Minister intend to put economists as well as Ministers on this Committee?

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE (SECRETARY).

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to continue the appointment of secretary to the Cabinet Office; and, if so, whether it is proposed to make any alteration in his duties?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: May I ask, if it is the case, then, that the secretary of the Cabinet Office still attends Cabinet meetings and makes out the minutes?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very much obliged for the supplementary
question. The statement appeared in some newspaper the other day, and it is absolutely without foundation.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTEES.

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut. -Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE:
105. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the increasing denial of the right of free speech at election meetings in many areas, and notably at the present bye-election at Preston; whether he will consider if the existing law is inadequate to prevent such disturbances; and, if not, whether he will consider the introduction of further legislation to secure a fair hearing at such meetings?

Sir G. DALRYMPLE-WHITE: On a point of Order, may I draw your attention to the fact that I put down a question to the Prime Minister about disturbances of public meetings, and that it duly appeared addressed to the Prime Minister on the Blue Paper yesterday, but that it has since been transferred without notice to myself to the Home Secretary, and is at the bottom of the Paper. In view of the importance of the question, may I ask it to-day? If not, I should like to postpone it until tomorrow.

Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to see the question first.

Sir G. DALRYMPLE-WHITE: It is on the Paper, No. 105.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then the answer will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT in the usual way, unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives notice that he wishes to postpone it.

Sir G. DALRYMPLE-WHITE: Yes, but I wish to postpone it.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: It is a case of a question having been altered. There have been several cases recently.

Mr. SPEAKER: These questions are transferred from the Minister to whom they are addressed at the request of the Department, so that they can be answered by the Minister who is really responsible and who will give the reply.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a general custom for the Member concerned to be advised of the proposed action and his permission asked?

Mr. SPEAKER: If notice is received from the Department in time, the Member will be advised that the question has been transferred.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIRS (ROYAL DOCKYARDS).

Sir B. FALLE: 56.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the highly equipped factories and workshops available at His Majesty's dockyard, Portsmouth, he will authorise the construction, equipment and repair work of aircraft used by the naval air wing at Portsmouth Dockyard?

Sir R. GOWER: 58.
asked the Under- Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the increased use of aircraft in His Majesty's Navy, he will consider the introduction of arrangements for their manufacture in the Royal dockyards?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The construction, equipment and repair of aircraft is very highly specialised work which it is considered can be better carried out by firms which exist for that work and have the requisite special plant and experience than by shipbuilding and ship-repairing establishments, even of the well-equipped character of the Royal dockyards.

Sir B. FALLE: Are these private firms?

Mr. MOSES: Is it not a fact that the same class of workmen are being transferred to these very workshops from the dockyard areas?

Viscountess ASTOR: As these are private firms, and there may be a reduction in the Navy, will the hon. Gentleman consider giving this work to the Royal dockyards?

Mr. MONTAGUE: All questions of that kind will be given every possible consideration, but, so far as the present situation is concerned, my answer meets the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBS.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air on what grounds an Order suppressing
references to the manufacture of aircraft gas bombs was brought into operation at Woolwich Arsenal; and whether such Order is continued with the approval of the Government?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The Order to which this question refers concerned a type of bomb previously designated as "gas bombs." As this type is not exclusively intended to be filled with gas, the new nomenclature was introduced in order to avoid giving a false impression.

Mr. THURTLE: Can my hon. Friend say whether these gas bombs are poison gas bombs or not?

Mr. MONTAGUE: They are not gas bombs, but general utility containers. They can be used for gas purposes, and they can also be used with liquid creating smoke.

Mr. KNIGHT: May I ask why in the Order referred to, these words appear:
When dealing with correspondence or preparing documents, etc., of any description, relating to aircraft bombs, the word gas is on no account to he used"?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I think that my answer covers the point of the question. The desire is not to create, either in this country or abroad, a false impression.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that gas is not being used?

Mr. MONTAGUE: It is a fact that gas is not being used, but it has been used for defensive experiments.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES (UNSPLINTER-ABLE GLASS).

Mr. DAY: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the many accidents which have occurred during the previous 12 months in which the public have suffered severe injuries caused by flying glass; and will he consider, in conjunction with the Home Secretary, a regulation which will make it compulsory for all public service vehicles to be fitted with unsplinterable glass?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am, of course, aware that injuries have been caused in
motor accidents by flying broken glass, though I am not aware that the prevalence of injuries of this nature has been marked during the past 12 months. While I am anxious to encourage the use of some form of unsplinterable glass in public service vehicles as an additional measure of safety, I am not at present satisfied that it would be practicable to make its use compulsory.

Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of his officers and the officers of the Home Department conferring with reference to this suggestion?

Mr. MORRISON: The matter is not being lost sight of, and observation is being kept on the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS (GRASS MARGINS).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport if in the construction of new, and the reconstruction of old, main roads he will, where possible, prescribe and elsewhere recommend the provision of adequate grass margins?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am anxious to encourage the provision of adequate grass margins along main roads in rural areas, and in other areas where such a course is practicable and desirable. My officers constantly bring this matter to the notice of highway authorities, and the cost of providing such margins is admitted as expenditure towards which grants are made from the Road Fund.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Member's Department responsible for the weeds which grow on these grass margins, the seeds from which are scattered all over the countryside?

Mr. MORRISON: I am afraid that is a matter for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES.

Sir FRANK NELSON: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport if there is anything in the existing regulations under which motor-driving licences are issued which prevents such licences being automatically issued to individuals suffering physical disabilities, such as defective sight or hearing, or to applicants who are men tally deficient?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The answer is in the negative, and under my existing powers I can make no regulations
in the matter. As the hon. Member is aware, the question of the issue of driving licences has been under consideration by the Royal Commission on Transport and is, I understand, dealt with in their First Report, which was presented to Parliament on Monday.

Sir F. NELSON: May I urge on the hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] May I request the hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]—May I ask the hon. Member whether, taking into consideration the parlous condition of traffic in the streets of London to-day, he will not press upon his Government the necessity of treating this as an urgent matter and introducing immediate legislation to deal with incompetent motor drivers on the streets of London?

Mr. MORRISON: All those considerations are present in the mind of the council?

Sir F. NELSON: With great deference, may I ask if the hon. Member does not realise that this is a very urgent question?

Oral Answers to Questions — CANALS.

Mr. HANNON: 64.
asked the Minister of Transport whether having regard to the importance of the maintenance and improvement of the canal systems of the country he will consider during the Recess the desirability of setting up in his Ministry a special Department to deal with matters relating to canals and in land waterways?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I will bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion, but I am not convinced that the establishment of a special Department for this particular purpose is a step which it is necessary or desirable to take.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether, in point of fact, there is anybody in the Department at the moment who is competent to deal with the question of canals from this point of view?

Mr. MORRISON: The Ministry of Transport is competent to deal with anything which has to do with canals.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY SERVICE, EAST LONDON.

Major NATHAN: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport whether in connection with the Government's unemployment plans, steps will be taken to construct an electric railway from Liverpool Street via Bethnal
Green to Leyton and Waltham Cross, and to Ilford and Hainault Forest?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The railway companies have been asked to suggest schemes of development of the kind indicated by the hon. Member, but I am not yet in a position to say what precise schemes are likely to be carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARKET PRODUCE COLLECTION, HULL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the London and North Eastern Railway Company are attempting to enforce regulations for the control of road vehicles collecting fruit and vegetables from the riverside quay at Hull, under which road vehicles are prohibited from collecting this perishable merchandise except between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., from Monday to Friday, and 8 a.m. to noon on Saturday; if he is aware that it is often impossible for importers to get their perishable goods away by rail during the ordinary working hours and that, if they are prevented from using road vehicles, this important trade will be seriously handicapped, especially during the summer months and whether he will use his good offices to prevent this restriction?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The railway company inform me that in order to secure satisfactory working of the dock it is essential that there should be a definite closing time, and that they have accordingly made a regulation to the effect that the collection or delivery of traffic by road vehicles is to be confined to the ordinary dock working hours except by special permission of the company. The company have assured me that they will always be prepared to give consideration to a request for special terms in any case of genuine hardship.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Member aware that the effect of this restriction is an attempt to confine this traffic solely to the railway services, which are inadequate, and will he ask his officers to watch this development and see that it is not extended?

Mr. MORRISON: That is, of course, a possible consideration in the mind of the railway company, and that aspect of the matter is not absent from the mind of the Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANAL SCHEME, SCOTLAND.

Mr. MACLEAN: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport whether a geophysical survey has been made of the proposed route or routes for a Forth and Clyde canal; and, if not, whether he is prepared to have such a survey made forthwith?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The answer to the first part of the question, is, so far as I am aware, in the negative. As regards the second part, I am not in a position at present to add to the answer which I gave on the 16th July to the hon. Member for Berwick and Haddington (Mr. Sinkinson).

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Member inform the House when he will be in a position to make a definite reply?

Mr. MORRISON: I am afraid I am not in a position to make a statement about that at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT.

Mr. VAUGHAN: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will promote the construction of new roads and widening of existing roads with reinforced concrete rafts instead of the method of hardcore pitching, thus avoiding future subsidences, uneven surfaces, and heavy maintenance expenditure?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Having regard to the widely differing conditions affecting road construction in various parts of the country I am not prepared to lay down general prescriptions of the nature indicated.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHARING CROSS STATION (REMOVAL).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can in form the House of the terms of the draft agreement which the Southern Railway Company have entered into for removing from the existing Charing Cross station on the north of the Thames and erecting a new station on the south side of the river; what is the site chosen; and whether consideration was given to any other site or sites?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The site is approximately a triangular one bounded on the one side by the proposed new elevated roadway on the river front, on the second side by Waterloo Road, and on the third by the approach to the
new bridge; various other alternative sites and schemes have been exhaustively considered. The heads of the proposed agreement have already been made public. For the hon. Member's convenience I am causing a copy to be sent to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — TARRED ROADS (TRACTION ENGINES).

Mr. GRANVILLE: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the considerable damage to second-class tarred roads by traction engines travelling during the heat of the day; and whether he will consider means of preventing their use of such roads at that time?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: My Department has received occasional complaints on this subject, but. I am no satisfied that it is necessary or practicable to impose the suggested restriction.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD SCHEMES (ADJACENT LAND).

Mr. VAUGHAN: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that 50 county, county borough, and other councils have expressed their desire that county councils and other public authorities should be granted compulsory powers to purchase land required for, and land lying alongside, public improvements at a purchase price calculated upon the basis of the value of the land before it is increased by reason of actual or prospective public expenditure; and whether he proposes to give effect to these proposals in connection with road unemployment schemes?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Representations have been received by my Department on this subject from certain local authorities. The question of the acquisition of additional land for purposes of recoupment, in connection with works of improvement carried out by local authorities, is being carefully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTMINSTER HALL.

Sir W. DAVISON: 73.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the disfigurement of Westminster Hall caused by the hurdle which is placed in the middle of the steps leading to St. Stephen's Hall; and whether he will arrange for the notice displayed thereon, forbidding access to the general public unless accompanied by a Member, to be inscribed on a small
floor-block, which would not disfigure the hall and the war memorial as is the case with the existing hurdle?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): Steps have already been taken to put the hon. Member's suggestion into effect.

Sir W. DAVISON: Thank you very much.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR EGYPT (LORD LLOYD'S RESIGNATION).

Mr. QUIBELL (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the post of High Commissioner for Egypt and the Sudan.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. I have to inform the House that I had an interview with Lord Lloyd as High Commissioner yesterday, during which he handed me his resignation, which His Majesty's Government have accepted.

Colonel GRETTON: May I ask if the resignation of Lord Lloyd arose in any way from the policy intended to be taken by His Majesty's Government?

HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes. First of all, I ought to say that the resignation was handed to me in a friendly exchange of letters, but, if I have to state the reasons, I must say that I had sent an intimation to Lord Lloyd before the latter left Egypt which was based upon my reading of the attitude that he had adopted towards the policy of the late Government.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we to understand from that answer that this resignation has been extorted—[Interruption.] I am asking for information—by the Government from Lord Lloyd, and that, if his resignation had not been forthcoming, dismissal would have followed?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. HENDERSON: The telegram that I sent to Lord Lloyd was of such a character that I think most people would have accepted it as an invitation to terminate their position.

Mr. CHURCHILL: rose
—

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for a right hon.
Gentleman, when he has admitted that he does not know the facts, to use in a question the term "extorted"?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing un-parliamentary in the word "extort."

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will lay papers or make a statement showing the grounds of difference which led the Government to force Lord Lloyd to resign, as he said he did? Will he lay papers or make a statement in time to enable this House to debate this question fully on the only opportunity open to us, which is on Friday next?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir, I shall be quite prepared to meet any statement that may be made on Friday on the Adjournment Motion.

HON. MEMBERS: Papers?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am quite prepared to make a statement, which is what I was asked for, at the earliest possible moment, which is Friday.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman also lay papers?

Mr. HENDERSON: The laying of papers, having regard to the fact that the papers are associated chiefly with the previous Government, is not a matter as to which an answer should be given without consideration. I may say that I have discussed the laying of papers with Lord Lloyd. He had no objection, but he agreed with the view that the laying of papers, especially if we went far enough back, might not be in the interest of the relationship between Egypt and this country.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Then are we to understand that the Foreign Secretary will open the proceedings on Friday by making us a full statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Are we then to understand—[Interruption.]—I shall stand here for an hour—that the Foreign Secretary, if not at the opening, will at some early and convenient period of the Debate on Friday make us a full statement upon this important and grave issue?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already intimated to the House that if the Debate is opened by those who are anxious to get information I will meet them.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that he is going to make a statement on Friday.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is it in order to move the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions on this subject must be deferred until the Debate on Friday.

Commander BELLAIRS: Are we not entitled to know whether we shall have the papers relative to the withdrawal of trust from Lord Lloyd by the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: That question has already been answered.

Commander BELLAIRS: The Foreign Secretary said that we must frame our indictment, and then he will answer it. How can we do that unless we have the papers?

Mr. THURTLE: May I submit that the Foreign Secretary has been subjected to half-a-dozen questions from the other side of the House and no one hon. Member on this side of the House has been allowed to put a question on this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know about whom the hon. Member complains, whether it is myself or hon. Members on the other side of the House. I have already allowed a good many supplementary questions.

Mr. THURTLE: My complaint is that the interrogations on this matter have been very one-sided.

Sir H. CROFT: Does the Foreign Secretary's answer indicate that this grave decision is going to be taken, and this House will have no opportunity of dividing upon this question?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already-told the House that I will give it the opportunity, if it cares to take it, on the Motion for the Adjournment on Friday.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the unsatisfactory
manner in which the Foreign Secretary has replied to questions upon an urgent public matter."

Mr. SPEAKER: That Motion does not fulfil any of the conditions laid down in the Standing Order No. 10.

Mr. DIXEY: Is it not; a fact, Mr. Speaker, that on an important occasion like this, hon. Members have a right to have a definite statement from the Foreign Secretary, and, if that statement is not satisfactory, ought we not to have the privilege of moving the Adjournment of the House.?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must carry out the Standing Order.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: I beg to amend the Motion of which I have given notice in this respect: For the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "The resignation of Lord Lloyd."

Mr. SPEAKER: Again, the hon. Member's notice of Motion does not fulfil the conditions laid down by the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL POLICY.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to naval shipbuilding?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am now in a position to make a statement of the immediate intentions of the Government regarding the Naval building programme. The Government's general position is that the defence of a country must be devised with two main considerations in view: First, the chances of the defences having to be used; then, the efficiency and economy shown in their magnitude and character. The Government have kept in view the changes in policy and in the problem of national security effected by the Peace Pact, if that Pact is to be made an effective influence in international relations. To make it so is the controlling purpose of the Government, and a systematic policy is being developed, which will take a little time to complete, to carry out that intention.
As is well known, in the midst of the multifarious concerns which the formation of a new Government entails and the specially pressing and complicated nature of our tasks, conversations have been actively carried on between the United States and ourselves for the purpose of opening the way for an agreement on naval matters which hitherto have defied a settlement. By a happy coincidence our assumption of office corresponded in time with the arrival in this country of the new American Ambassador, General Dawes, who has come here charged by the President of the United States of America with a mission for preparing the ground for an International Agreement on the Reduction and Limitation of Naval Armaments. Already the whole field of these differences with the United States has been surveyed, and the two Governments have made a fresh start on their solution. We have agreed upon the principle of parity; we have agreed that, without in any way departing from the conditions of parity, a measure of elasticity can be allowed so as to meet the peace requirements of the two nations. We have determined that we shall not allow technical points to override the great public issues involved in our being able to come to a settlement. And so soon as the rising, of this House releases me from its day-to-day work, I propose to make this matter my chief concern until an issue is reached. A visit to the President of the United States is now the subject of conversation so that it may take place when it will be most helpful to promote the cordial relations of our two countries, and in particular advance the ends of disarmament and peace which we hold in common. It has to be fitted in with certain international conferences, but October at present looks a likely month.
A Committee to co-ordinate the three Services for the purposes of Cabinet consideration has been set up, but as that co-ordination is not comprehensive enough to meet the requirements of State policy, the Foreign Office is also represented upon it. This will enable us to systematise our work. In the opinion of this Committee, the general outlook is such as to justify a review of our own programme. Our predecessors did this from time to time as the outlook brightened. Therefore, after a thorough examination of our naval position, and
not only as a proof of our own sincerity but as a duty imposed upon us to guard the expenditure of national money, we have decided as follows:
To suspend all work on the cruisers "Surrey" and "Northumberland."
To cancel the Submarine Depôt Ship "Maidstone."
To cancel two contract submarines.
To slow down dockyard work on other naval construction.
As regards the 1929–30 programme, in any event no commitments would have to be entered into before the autumn, and no steps will be taken to proceed with it until the matter has received further consideration.
The Government, of course, recognises that a reduction in the Naval building programme must have a direct effect on employment in the dockyards, but I am glad to say that as a result of special rearrangements suggested by the Admiralty, it is hoped to be able to secure the absorption of a large amount of labour which would otherwise be discharged from the Royal Dockyards. The representatives of dockyard labour will at once be consulted.
We are indebted to the Board of Admiralty for the help which they have rendered, and I desire to state that, having expressed their technical view on the minimum armaments they consider to be necessary, they have furnished us with loyal help in achieving our object with the least possible dislocation and hardship.
I ought to add, in order to make the statement complete, that it is recognised by all the Powers concerned that a preliminary agreement on Anglo-American differences is essential to a general agreement on naval building, and the Governments of the Powers represented at Washington, 1921–22, have been informed of the conversations. So soon as the way is cleared, they will be invited to a preliminary Conference so that we may all together try to come to an agreement of a comprehensive kind. The final agreement would be ratified at a place which, I hope, will by common consent be chosen by the United States as a recognition of the splendid part played by its President in these transactions, and then reported to the Preparatory Commission of the League as a contribution to its work.
If these intentions are fulfilled, the request of the Chairman of the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament made at Geneva on 15th March, 1928, that the Powers should make an attempt to agree amongst themselves will be accomplished, and we shall be in a position to pursue with that Commission the difficult but essential problems of how to reduce other forms of armaments in accordance with the pledge given by the Allies at Versailles when imposing disarmament on Germany and its associated nations, and in pursuance of the Pact of Peace. To that His Majesty's Government will direct their thoughts and their energies, in cooperation with other nations, so soon as this more immediate work on naval agreement has been finished. A general Disarmament Conference will then be possible. I am anxious that the House should not minimise the difficulties in our way, nor the time that will be required for the negotiations, but they may be assured that it will be our care to make our own policy clear and our desire to put our energies into a settlement without unnecessary delay.

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Board of Admiralty had laid down certain minimum requirements, and had then given their loyal co-operation in the policy of the Government. Were those minimum requirements as stated by the Government's professional advisers fully met by the reduced programme which the Government propose to carry out?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not the least doubt whatever that when the agreement with the United States has been reached, the minimum requirements put up to us will be adequately covered.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the goodness to answer the direct question put by my right hon. Friend?

The PRIME MINISTER: Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are responsible for their policy, and when I say that, I hope no right hon. Gentleman will say that I am shirking an answer. Only such an answer can be given in the interests of the nation.

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned certain specific minimum requirements. Can he tell us whether the professional advisers of the Government are at the present stage satisfied that the conditions laid down will achieve those minimum requirements?

The PRIME MINISTER: The minimum requirements are going to be stated finally in whatever agreement is come to with the United States, and until that agreement is reported or otherwise—I hope reported—nothing can be said about what the ultimate minimum may be.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to endeavour to effect an arrangement with the United States before they approach the other Powers. Do they propose, first of all, to come to an agreement with the United States of America and then have a conference of all the naval Powers?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend knows the difficulty of putting one thing in front of another. As I have said—I hope the significance of my words has not been missed—that as we are going on with our conversations we are reporting the conversations—the effect of the conversations, and the general result of the conversations—to the Powers that will ultimately be concerned.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this, because I think it is very important. I hope that the Government are keeping in touch with the other naval Powers throughout the whole of these discussions, so that there shall be no suggestion of a one-sided arrangement.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think I can go thus far, because it is always difficult to be pressed too closely in these very delicate matters, but I can say I have personally seen the Ambassadors of the other Powers concerned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will it be convenient for my right hon. Friend to say whether, as the original breakdown of negotiations occurred between ourselves and America in 1927, we have not been directly invited to try to settle satisfactorily with America the then points of difference?

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a decision has been arrived at with regard to the Singapore Base?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the large survey, that has been included.

Colonel GRETTON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the House will be afforded an opportunity before it rises of discussing the statement, especially the naval reduction? I ask that question because we are to have a Debate on Friday on Egypt, and other matters of discussion have already been promised for that day.

The PRIME MINISTER: I was going to say that the ordinary opportunity will be afforded. I shall be very pleased to be here on Friday, but on purely Admiralty matters my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will be here to reply to any questions. If policy questions are to be put on Friday, I shall answer them.

Colonel GRETTON: Already matters of great importance are indicated to be debated on Friday. Cannot the Prime Minister afford us some other opportunity before rising?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On another aspect of this question, may I ask whether any precise figures were laid before the right hon. Gentleman before he came to this decision as to the exact effect this would have on employment in the dockyards, and whether, seeing that this decision is bound in years to come to have a very serious effect on the whole standing of the Royal dockyards, he has made any arrangements whatever for providing alternative work?

The PRIME MINISTER: We had figures, and they were considered, not merely as figures, but as human quantities and qualities by a committee that was specially appointed to deal with the matter and to handle the matter at the Admiralty and in the dockyards.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House those figures, and, seeing that he takes the human view of this question, is he not aware that this question will be very gravely received in the dockyard towns, which are desirous of knowing what their future is to be?

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this momentous decision he has made towards peace is far greater than any other question like unemployment?

Sir B. FALLE: Will the delay in the construction of the cruisers have its effect on the numbers of personnel in the Navy?

The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, let us assume that the worst comes to the worst; it merely pushes the completion of the ships back some months. If the arrangement is come to, and all these minimum requirements are properly provided, it will mean that the work will not be proceeded with at all; but I assume that the House and the country are in favour of very active steps to secure peace.

Sir B. FALLE: But the Navy is being recruited day by day.

Major COLFOX: Is it fair to say that, arising out of the answer given by the Prime Minister to the supplementary questions asked by my right hon. Friend, the Government have decided already to reduce the Navy below the safety minimum—[HON. MEMBER: "No!"]—in the view of the professional advisers, whereas that minimum may, perhaps, not be below the standard when agreement, which has not yet been arrived at, has been arrived at, and therefore the Government have already decided to reduce the standard below the safety level?

The PRIME MINISTER: I want to make it perfectly clear that the Government have come to this conclusion in a full belief, taking the state of the world to-day, the prospects of peace, that the Navy as it is left after this announcement is perfectly capable of doing its duty.

Mr. LEES: In view of the fact that there are many matters of real importance in which the House is interested, why should not this House, instead of becoming unemployed next month, continue to sit on to deal with this business?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Can the Prime Minister give the House any estimate of the savings to the taxpayer by this proposal?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have also gone into that, although it was not primarily for savings, but we believe that
when we have found out what the net savings are—it is rather difficult to find them out in a great hurry—but when we have found out what the net savings are, they will not be inconsiderable.

Mr. DIXEY: A very important suggestion has been put to the right hon. Gentleman by one of his own supporters, namely, that in view of the importance of this matter, it would be proper for the Government to lengthen the Session of Parliament to enable us to discuss this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to say on what date he proposes to call the House together after the Recess, and what the business will be when we reassemble?

The PRIME MINISTER: We propose that the House should reassemble on Tuesday, the 29th October.
The first business before the House will be a Bill dealing with widows' pensions. I am advised that the necessary Bill will not require to be introduced on a Money Resolution, and on that assumption the Bill will be introduced to-morrow and circulated during the Recess.
The programme for the first week of the Sitting will be as follows:
Tuesday: Widows' Pensions Bill, Second Reading.
I am assuming, in the announcement I am making, that the House will agree to-day to the amended Standing Orders which are down on the Order Paper in my name, so that Wednesday, 30th October, will be a private Members' day. In that event, a ballot will be necessary on the Tuesday.
Thursday and Friday: The Widows' Pensions Bill will be considered in Committee of the Whole House.
If time permits on any day, it is proposed to take other Orders, including the Second Reading of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Bill. This Bill, which it is hoped will prove non-controversial, will be introduced before the Recess and circulated before the House meets.
I must also make another proviso, namely, that, if it be the desire, in the light of circumstances then existing, to debate the question of relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Government will have to modify the above programme so as to afford an opportunity for such a Debate during that week.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the text of the Widows' Pensions Bill will be circulated?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is in active preparation now, and it will be circulated well before the meeting of the House.

Mr. HARRIS: Would it be possible to have a Ballot for private Members' Motions to-morrow, so that the successful Members who draw places will have adequate time in which to prepare?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly willing to make any arrangement that I can to help to meet the convenience of the House, but I should have thought that the notice I have given to-day would enable Members to make up their minds by the 30th October.

Major COLFOX: Since this is the first announcement that has been made as to the date of the reassembling of Parliament after the Recess, car the Prime Minister explain how it was that that date was published in this morning's papers?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sorry, but I often wish I could lay my hands on innumerable leakages that take place in that and other matters.

Colonel GRETTON: May I ask the Prime Minister if he intends to put down on the Paper on Friday a Motion limiting the time for the discussion of the very important matters indicated that will be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I was going to allow Friday to be just the usual sitting.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Irish Free State (Confirmation of Agreement) Bill,

Unemployment Insurance Bill,

Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles (Additional Routes) Provisional Order Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,

Greenock Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,

Ross and Cromarty (Dornie Bridge, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

London Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill [Lords],

Romford Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled,

"An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dunfermline and District Traction." [Dunfermline and District Traction Order Confirmation Bill]. [Lords]

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

Dunfermline and District Traction Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929.

CLASS IV.

NATIONAL GALLERY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £106,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Millbank, including a Grant-in-Aid for the purchase of Pictures.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The Vote for which I am now asking is for two pictures—the first, what is called the Wilton Diptych, and the second, the Cornaro Family—the purchase of which has been negotiated by the Trustees of the National Gallery. The sum asked for is half the purchase price, the remainder being partly subscribed by private donors, and partly from funds available for this purpose. I should, perhaps, explain to the Committee that it has been for some time past the policy of successive Governments, with agreement in all sections of the House, to contribute in certain circumstances and under certain conditions to the purchase for the public of the works of great masters. I do not know whether there will be any attempt to call this in question this afternoon, but I may, perhaps, point out to the Committee that it is of great importance that works which are recognised as masterpieces should not be allowed to leave this country, but should remain the heritage of the people of these islands; and, further than that, that they should not be locked away in some private collection, where they will only be viewed by a few selected people, but that they should be in a public place where people of all positions in life, if they choose to take the trouble, can avail themselves of the opportunity of seeing them. That, as I have said, has
been the policy pursued by successive Governments. It has never been called in question, and the negotiated purchase which has been effected in this case has been carried out under the arrangements which are included in that general declared policy. With regard to the particular exercise of that function in the present instance, I may, perhaps, be permitted to say a few words—and I imagine that only a very few words will be necessary—in dealing with the two particular specimens which are the subject of this Vote.
The Wilton Diptych is a two-panelled altar-piece. It is one of the most famous historical monuments in painting in this country, and it appears to be unexampled for its quality and date in any other country. There cannot be the slightest doubt that it is a picture which should be retained in some public picture gallery or museum in this country. With regard to the Cornaro Family, it is recognised that this work of Titian is a masterpiece which is one of the finest works of Titian in the world, and there is no other example of Titian's work in this country, or, indeed, possibly, in any country, which can be put in comparison with it at all. In these circumstances, I think it is perfectly clear that these two pictures are very fir, and proper subjects for the Vote in question.
With regard to the price, as to which, possibly some Members of the Committee like to be reassured, the position is this: The price was named originally, I think, in the year 1922, but prices for outstanding works of art have very much increased since that date, and it should be a matter of satisfaction to this Committee that, in spite of the very general increase in prices, it is the case that, owing to the generosity of private donors, the amount which is actually being asked for in this Vote is very little in excess of the sum which was originally fixed as far back as the year 1922. I think that that is really all that I need say at this stage. If there are any questions, I will endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability, or, if there should be any criticism of this Vote, I will do my best to explain more in detail the grounds on which I think this Committee ought, without any question, to meet the demand. Perhaps, in conclusion, I may just say this that this transaction was, in
effect, agreed to by the late Government, and that to go back upon it now would present a very serious difficulty and would be regarded by many people as something in the nature of a breach of faith. I hope, therefore that the Committee, after such discussion as they think fit, will grant us this Vote.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As I am, I think, the only Member of this House other than the present Prime Minister who was a Trustee of the National Gallery at the time when these two purchases were negotiated, I think it my duty to say a few words in regard to the circumstances in which these two pictures have been acquired for the nation. As the Financial Secretary has indicated, when, immediately after the War, the question was specially examined as to what steps should be taken to prevent the drain out of this country of important works of art which had been collected here, it was decided by the then Government, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Prime Minister, that the important thing was to secure certain definite known masterpieces. The list was short, and necessarily secret, because, if it were a known fact that the nation desired to purchase these pictures—there is no harm in my saying that the total number was 12—immediately their value would be enhanced, and moreover it would be difficult absolutely to enforce, without special legislation, that they should come to the nation. Therefore, the arrangement was that, rather than the Treasury should be asked to increase the annual grant to the National Gallery for the purchase of pictures, if and when any of these selected exceptional masterpieces came into the open market for free sale, the Government of the day would come to the assistance of the Trustees of the National Gallery, who, in turn, would be expected to do what they could to raise funds from friends of the Gallery and from their own private resources, as well as relying upon Government help. That is the broad outline of the arrangement.
The first two of the special list of selected historic masterpieces which have come up for sale since the War are these two particular pictures, and, therefore, the late Government, and finally the present Government, arranged with the
Trustees of the National Gallery that the Trustees and their friends should raise half the purchase price, and that the Government, in accordance with the pledge which had been often given, would on this occasion come to the assistance of the Gallery to make up the other half.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Whatever the price?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The price is necessarily determined by the other offers made for these pictures when they came into the market. I cannot say definitely what other offers there have been, though I understood that there were more than one, and, as regards one of the pictures, namely the Titian, we, had reason to believe that undoubtedly it would have been sold in the open market, since great pressure has been put upon the owner in recent years to sell it so that it might go across the Atlantic, in the first place, probably, to a private collector, and, ultimately, to one of the great public collections in the United States; and undoubtedly, had it not been for the willingness of the owner to enter into direct negotiations with the Trustees of the National Gallery, he would in the open market have obtained a very much better price.
One word about these two pictures, as questions may be raised in the House, and they have been raised outside. The authorship of the Wilton Diptych is, and probably will for all time remain, unknown and, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is quite unique. It is quite clearly a contemporary picture of King Richard II, the son of the Black Prince, painted by an artist who was primarily a miniaturist but undoubtedly had very exceptional powers compared with many other contemporary mediaeval craftsmen. He was either probably a Burgundian or from the North of France, or he may have been an Englishman. It has been suggested in the papers that it belongs to the Norwich school and bears some relation to the famous retable in Norwich cathedral. I do not think there is the slightest association between those two works, or that the Wilton Diptych has anything whatever in common with the author of the Norwich retable, and this fact makes the Wilton Diptych all the more unique. It is undoubtedly the one outstanding work in England of late fourteenth century art of its quality and
character. Very likely, it is not English at all. In those days it must be remembered that England was in possession of Calais, in the middle of the Hundred Years War, and was in very close association with France. If English at all, it is much more likely to have been the work of some Monastic artist, possibly associated with the Abbey of Westminster or one of the greater abbeys in the southern part of the Kingdom.
About the other pictures, the Cornaro Titian, so called, is not a portrait group of the Cornaro family but of the Vandramin family. It is recorded in the Vandramin collection in 1567. It passed by purchase to Van Dyck. Van Dyck went to Italy in 1621 and he went to Venice in 1622. It is doubtful whether he actually purchased the picture in that year, though it is clear from the whole change that came over Van Dyck's art in Italy after his first period in Antwerp that he was profoundly influenced by Titian above all other artists, and this was the leading Titian in the collection of pictures which Van Dyck formed when he was in Italy and which he brought to England.
On the death of Van Dyck in England, his executors sold his pictures and the picture was bought by Algernon Percy, the tenth Earl of Northumberland, and it has remained and passed through that family ever since it belonged to Van Dyck. The point has been raised in the Press that during its possession by the Northumberland family it has in some way or other been either over-cleaned, and even in one case, it is said, repainted. Going carefully-over the surface of the picture, there is absolutely no sign whatever of any repainting. Varnish may have been removed in the eighteenth century but there is no sign of repainting, and all experts, foreign as well as our own, are agreed that the picture is in absolutely first-class condition. It is a particularly important picture. Titian, of course, is the painters' painter par excellence. Of all the great Venetians Titian in his long career as a painter perhaps learnt more of the secrets of handling oil paint and the secrets of colour than any other of the great painters of the Renaissance, and in this picture you have very exceptional evidence
of his outstanding skill. It is not merely the general design and the treatment of the group of figures, which is quite unique in the realm of his own art or in the history of Italian portraiture of the sixteenth century, but it is an example of self-expression when Titian was at his maturist powers, getting an old man but still possessed of the most astonishing skill with the brush, but it is in the whole series of details, which have profoundly influenced later art in successive ages, the treatment of the sky, the treatment of the contrasting colours, the black, the white and the scarlet in one of the group of boys, on the right. There is a boy on the left, one of the nine figures, which led quite directly to the work of Velasquez. Velasquez only reached Italy a few months after Van Dyck left Genoa. It may have been that the memory and the knowledge of this great portrait group reached Velasquez and influenced his art too. But there is no painter who, studying this picture, cannot derive the most tremendous impression of mastery, and it is interesting to note that the National Gallery authorities have had a special photograph taken of the painting of the hand of the central figure. The central figure of a Venetian Senator rising on the steps is brought out of the picture and the painting of the hand is almost the most skilful bit of Italian painting that probably ever was done. It is above all, therefore, a picture of immense importance in the history of art and of immense importance to students and artists of all time. It is now and will henceforward be one of the very proudest possessions of the National Gallery. The National Gallery has, of course, two magnificent early Titians and it has more recently acquired a replica of the Gloria in Prado. It belongs to the most triumphant period of one of the greatest artists that Italy produced. I think all other nations are congratulating the National Gallery and this country on acquiring for public possession an exceptional masterpiece of this kind.
I think the policy of this and previous Governments in regard to purchases or this kind has been perfectly right. Whereas in the main the National Gallery relies upon benefactions of private persons and upon the interest of its invested
funds, which have largely come from legacies, to buy things from time to time to fill up gaps in the collection, its main policy, rich as the Gallery is, should now be to prevent these very exceptional masterpieces being lost to the country by crossing the Atlantic at a time when both public and private collectors in America are bidding enormous sums to acquire these pictures which for centuries have been in England. One cannot blame America for desiring to build up a great collection such as was built up in this country in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and one cannot expect that we should keep them all. There must necessarily be a flow from this old country to the new centre of culture. But it is important that this country, for artistic reasons, should retain these exceptional works. After all the National Gallery is used by artists and students and also appeals to a far wider circle, and there is an enormous number of people to whom really great works of art are a source of spiritual enjoyment which cannot be assessed in pounds, shillings and pence. So long as we are a great and wealthy nation it ought to be our duty to provide the public and visitors to the country with the finest works of art for their spiritual refreshment, education and enjoyment, and I am sure the Government and the Trustees are fortunate in having acquired this year two of those outstanding works of art which will henceforward be amongst the richest treasures of our already great collection.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not rise for the purpose of criticising in any way the expenditure of this money in the purchase of these two important pictures. They are, by common consent, supreme examples of the painter's art, and I congratulate the Trustees of the National Gallery on acquiring these two great pictures. The Wilton Diptych in particular is, of course, of great interest to us in England, being bound up with our history in the past, and it is a picture which none of us would be willing to see go across the seas. I rise rather to suggest the hope that this list of pictures which are to be bought is kept a very dark secret indeed, because the danger of putting up the price of pictures increases from year to year. We are hearing continually of the phenomenal wealth of America, and there seems no limit to
the prices that Americans are willing to pay for great examples of European art. It ought to be remembered, too, that these pictures were not painted in England, and that the Americans have perhaps quite as much claim to have them as we have if they can buy them. But I want to urge the danger of our entering into competition over these highly-priced pictures. There is no doubt, I am afraid, that there is a large number of people who make a great income by buying the pictures of great artists, and the works of lesser artists is brought into notice and their qualities carefully examined by dealers and artists and the price goes up, and it has little or no relation to their artistic merit as works of art.
We had a supreme example of that in the courts a few years ago. Many who are listening to me will remember the case of a supposed Romney which was sold to a gentleman from the United States by a dealer, I think in London, for £20,000. It was suspected afterwards that the picture was not a Romney at all and the purchaser brought an action against the man from whom he had brought it for the recovery of the £20,000. I think that counsel in the case hunted down the history of the picture until it was found out that it was not by Romney but by Ozias Humphrey. The thing that is staggering and which should make one careful in regard to these matters is that a picture, when it was before the artistic world and before people who loved pictures, was worth £20,000 because it was thought to be a Romney, and worth only £700 when it was found out that it was by Ozias Humphrey. These great prices are really not paid for the value of works of art at all. They are paid because of scarcity or because a desire has been created among collectors to possess them. This illustrates the difficulty and danger with which the Trustees of the National Gallery and others who have to do with the purchasing of pictures have to contend in these days. I think it is worth while to give this warning, but at the same time I congratulate the nation on having secured these pictures and the Government in bringing forward the necessary Motion to secure the money.

Mr. MacLAREN: I do not know ever having intervened in a discussion of this kind when I have felt more strongly
than I do to-day. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), and I found that some parts of it were very interesting. I am not in any way trying to fence with him. Of late years, I have noticed that politicians are becoming art critics, and God preserve me from politicians when they begin to be art critics. Usually the last thing that a politician can do is to talk about art.
What is behind that which we are discussing to-day? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hythe (Sir P. Sassoon) in 1922 was anxious that the State should do something to preserve real works of art for the State. He raised the matter in this House and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) used these words:
If we are to value art treasures at all, we must take every means in our power to preserve them. I have had the great privilege of an interview with Sir Charles Holmes (who was chief curator at the National Gallery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hythe, and I think it will be possible to take measures to preserve such masterpieces for the nation at a cost which certainly would not be extravagant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1922; cols. 1860–61, Vol. 157.]
He goes on in a later passage, to emphasise that the nation might intervene under certain circumstances if the prices were not extravagant. Now as to the real subject of this discussion: Why do we look at pictures? Surely we look at a work of art or a picture to try and get some æsthetic enjoyment. Is it not true to say that many of the canvases owned by local authorities and by our national institutions in London give no one any feeling but a feeling of disgust? These pictures have cost great sums. Who can look at Sir John Millais to-day without a tear, yet many of the contemporary paintings of his time ought to be keeping out the draughts from a broken pane of glass. The fashions come and go. The characteristic of a work of art is, that it lives, and continues down the ages. The great artist is the man who clutches at something and gives it the rush of life. He crystallises an instant in his experience. The great artist is a man with a power of selection, and the measure of the aesthetic value of a picture is recorded in the aesthetic enjoyment
which the beholder receives. I hope the Committee will excuse me for intervening in this way but I think that it is necessary in view of this grant that something should be said on the subject of what it is that gives great art its force and meaning.
I have seen these two pictures. First of all, I saw the small Wilton Diptych. It has simplicity, it has evidence of having been done by an artist not merely for payment but for the honour and glory of God. Only by such an impulse can any great work of art be produced. I went round and saw the other picture of the Cornaro Family by Titian, but I did not feel the same enthusiam for it as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford seemed to feel. There was a little slip in his enthusiastic description of the picture. It would not matter to me how skilfully the hand was painted even if it was so real that I felt inclined in my Scottish disposition to drop a coin into it. That would not, in my opinion, constitute a great work of art. A picture might be skilfully painted and have no spiritual appeal. In the "Cornaro" picture you feel that it is a fragment. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that in this country there are copies of that picture and that they have already been referred to by Lionel Oust in a letter to the "Times." Gust, having referred to the fact that there are two copies of this picture in England, says:
The existence of these copies does, in my opinion, raise a question as to such a great expenditure on the original painting.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is nothing of Titian in either of the two copies, which are later works done by poor copyists. One of the copies omits part of the original picture.

Mr. MacLAREN: If I wanted to study the handling of a great painter, the last thing I would do would be to consult a copy. None the less I think that there is something in it, and the fact that there are two copies of the picture in England should have weighed a little when it came to arranging a price. It has been openly stated that you cannot really assess the value of a work of art. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman make the remark that if the prices had gone too high or got beyond what was reasonable
special legislation might have been necessary. I would welcome that legislation in this House at once. A work of art has come down through the ages. The great artists do not produce works of art for special persons, they produce them because of the joy and satisfaction they receive in the work of production, and in the hope that all may see and appreciate.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Would the hon. Gentleman have legislated to keep Italian pictures in England?

Mr. MacLAREN: Works of art know nothing about nationality. Great composers and artists know nothing of nationalities. They produce works of art because they are an expression of themselves to their fellowmen. It is not a question of legislation in order to keep Italian art here. The fact is that these pictures are here, and if they are allowed to go out into the market—and that has been the common characteristic of the speeches in this House—they will become chopping blocks in the market. I would welcome legislation in England that would say that great works of art should not leave England and that no profit should be made out of them.

Mr. LEIF JONES: If any such legislation were in existence in other countries, there would be no Italian pictures in this country.

Mr. MacLAREN: Under the League of Nations and the adoption of an interchange of art between the nations we should have galleries circulating all round instead of blocks here, there and everywhere. There is no reason why Spain should not send Valasque to London and we send our productions there. The hon. Member must be up to date in this matter. An interchange of art is just as easy within our normal conception of the intercourse of nations as the performance of the "Eroica" produced in London by a German orchestra.
5.0 p.m.
Having said so much I now come down to the main point in regard to prices. This is really the stumbling block. What are the facts? The Wilton Diptych was bought from the Earl of Pembroke for £90,000, towards which the following subscriptions have been received or promised: Mr. Samuel Courtauld, £20,000; Lord Rothermere, £10,000; Mr. F. C. Stoop, £10,000; the National Art Collection
Fund, £5,000; and His Majesty's Government, £45,000. When we come to the Titian portrait group we find that the Government have to pay £61,000 out of a total sum of £122,000. Really these figures are staggering. Last night in this House there was great heat and excitement when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and his late chief arraigned my right hon. Friend on this side of the House for extravagance in regard to local government, yet here is a sum in respect of two pictures amounting to £106,000. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to say that this was the deed of the late Government and that that being so we must honour the bond. I must confess that there is something not quite open about this matter. It had been said that these great pictures which were unknown to the general dealers and known only to the Trustees of the National Gallery had to be kept quiet; but in a passage in his speech the hon. Gentleman said that the prices of the pictures were determined by the competition outside. Therefore, it really does not matter whether you keep them in the dark or put them in the sunlight. The moment that these pictures are known to be pictures that are likely to be bought and sold the American competition asserts itself upon them. The other day, I was speaking to one of the leading picture dealers in Bond Street, and he said to me: "When is the House of Commons going to wake up to this business?" He told me that he had gone into a house in a country district outside London and had seen a picture which ho thought was a Rembrandt. He took it to his shop, and an American forthwith offered him thousands of pounds for it, on condition that he had the picture certified by a German doctor. The dealer arranged for the German to come over to see the picture. On arrival at the shop the German doctor said: "I am to examine a picture. Where is it?" The dealer said to him:" It is in the other room." "If I enter that other room and look at it," said the German, "my fee must be paid"; and the dealer had to sign a cheque for £550. After looking at the picture, the German designated it as an early Rembrandt; but after a little more thought he said
it might be a late Rembrandt, and a discussion arose as to increasing his fee to £700. That is the kind of huckstering that is going on in this country—low-down huckstering.
When I walk down Bond Street and I look at the picture shops there, my mind always running on land values, and I think of the site value of Colgnaghi's, I say to myself: "What pays the rent of these places?" It can only be paid by the very heavy profit on pictures. I do not mind if an American comes here and he is willing to fork out a big sum for a picture to take back to America, to give delight in the multi-millionaire mansions, but it is time to call a halt when the taxpayers of this country are brought into these inflated prices. I notice that the Cornaro belongs to the Duke of Northumberland. One would have thought that the Duke, with his great patriotism, would have said: "Take it. I have plenty of coal mines and great acres of land, and I do not need this picture." Not so. The picture agents got busy, and they got £122,000 for the picture. What about the aesthetic value of that picture to the average taxpayer. Fancy, bringing an Aberdonian in front of that picture and saying to him: "How much do you think the nation paid towards that picture?" What aesthetic enjoyment would he find in it when he knew the price. He would fall down stone dead if he knew the price.
I object to this money having been paid, already. It was done in rather a strange way. It was done quietly. This House was not consulted. The money was paid, because it was said that if there was any publicity about the matter it would affect the market price of the pictures. Now, we are told that sum of £106,000 has been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund towards the purchase of the pictures, and that sum will be repaid from the money which we are now asked to vote. This House is beginning to lose control of a certain amount of money if that sort of thing is to go on. If money is to be spent quietly and secretly in this way and it is to be advanced out of the Contingencies Fund and we are to be asked to vote the money after it has been advanced, we can do nothing but accept
it. I protest against that, and I shall vote against it. I think it is a shame and a scandal that the people who have benefited so much out of this deal are the picture dealers. I could unfold a tale as to the way in which these huge profits are made, but it would bring in the name of a man who has had something to do with these pictures. I can, however, say that the passing of one of these pictures from one room to another appreciated its value by £3,000.
Is this done for the love of art? Not at all. If this House wants to benefit art in this country, it can do it in a far more effective way. Let it put a stop to the export of great works of art. The greatest works of art should be kept in this country, but not by exploiting the taxpayers to this extent. I would draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the letter of Sir Reginald Blomfield, in the "Times," in which he said that at a time like this to pay this money is nothing short of cruelty. He went on to say that the country cannot afford the money that it is called upon to find by the Government for these pictures, and that if the State is to purchase works of art, it should purchase them for their aesthetic value and not for their rarity value. I agree with that point of view. I agree as to the beauty and the marvellous simplicity of a picture like the Wilton Diptych, but I object to our being placed at the mercy of the dealers. It was common talk that the Diptych was under the eye of the American speculators. Let the House take a bold line. Do not let us be furtively carried away on a dark night by the idea that we are doing a thing secretly and quietly, thereby overcoming the plundering that might take place in the open market, and then find that we are paying away a big sum of money and that we have no control over that money, because it has already gone.
I am very glad that this question has come before the House, because the whole matter of art and art development in this country needs examination from top to bottom. If money is to be spent upon art, by all means let us spend it, but let us see that it is spent in the real, live development of art in this country. Let hon. Members go to the Royal College of Art and look at the conditions under
which the students are working. If a, student designs a cartoon for a stained glass window, and he gets the glass and cuts it ready for the leading, there are no chemicals. If he wants the glass firing, there is no firing for days, and precious time is lost. If the students want to carry out elementary studies in the life classes they have to do it under congested, unhealthy conditions in their classrooms. Go into the kitchen where they are obliged to take their food and you find a most unwholesome scramble of students one over the other. A student may be there for over an hour and not be able to get food.
To improve such conditions would be a most desirable way of spending money for the development of art in this country. That is the way to do it, and not in art education of the Slade school of half-tone, pea-green shades. Let us develop healthy art and design in our Royal College of Art. There is far too much of this highbrow nonsense about art, which seems to see great beauty in the wild eccentricities of the followers of the Caesean school and exalt them into great works of art. When I see that sort of thing, I look upon it as a sort of decadence which is creeping through society. If we want to spend money upon art, let us recondition the Royal College of Art. We could have gone a long way in that direction with the money which we are spending upon these two pictures. Let us give encouragement to modern artists more than we have been doing. I find from the Report of the Royal Commission on National Museums and Galleries that the Angerstein Collection was procured for the nation in 1824 by a Parliamentary Vote of £60,000, less than we are paying towards one of the two pictures which have been purchased.

Lord BALNIEL: That sum was criticised in exactly the same way.

Mr. MacLAREN: Yes, but if you make a comparison of the proportions and the relationship of the circumstances of that time, and the money that was spent, with the circumstances of to-day and the money which we are asked to pay towards these two pictures, there is room for straightforward criticism. Let us not forget that the Angerstein Collection included masterpieces by Rembrandt, by Rubens, by Claude and by Wilson. Therefore, we had quite a collection of
masterpieces included in that purchase price of £60,000. If we take £60,000 as the datum line of 1824 in the purchase of such masterpieces and we compare it with the prices ruling to-day, we can fairly claim that there is flagrant and wild speculation going on, and I object to the people of this country, through the Government, being called upon to pay these vast sums. On the one hand we are told that we cannot assess the value of these works of art, and on the other hand we are told that they are such great works of art that nothing must be said about them at the time when they are being purchased, and that we must pay for them when we are asked for the money. I object to that. The right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) spoke about the money for the purchase of these and other pictures being found in the proportion of fifty-fifty, by the State and outside parties. It is suggested that under those circumstances there should be payment no matter what the cost may be. Are we to be pledged to a policy of fifty-fifty in the future, no matter what the price may be?
What I have said will avail nothing in regard to the payment for the two pictures in question, but I hope that, at least, it will help towards something being done to put a stop to this wild speculation. It is not helping art. It is not giving assistance to the energetic and capable artists of our time. It is paying for rarity value which has nothing to do with aesthetic value. I am sure that if the nation knew that the House was paying this big sum towards two pictures, and that if the distressed mining areas knew that we were to-day complacently paying out this large sum of money to the Duke of Northumberland and to the Earl of Pembroke, there would be very hot criticism throughout the length and breadth of the country. I am against it, on principle, and I shall vote against it. It is high time that this—I do not want to use the word "affectation"—so-called love of art, which is causing the taxpayers of this country to pay huge sums of money in this way, should be checked. I have entered my protest, and I shall go into the Lobby against the Vote.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: Perhaps it would help to a smooth passage of the Vote if the Financial Secretary to the
Treasury would explain the use of the Civil Contingencies Fund. I think we are entitled to an explanation.

Captain CAZALET: I do not think that anyone who has listened to the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for Burslem. (Mr. MacLaren) will ever again say that land values is the only topic which he understands. I was extremely interested in his views, not only in regard to this grant but in regard to art generally, and I am sure that other hon. Members were equally interested. I should like to make a few observations on this proposed Exchequer grant. Let me add my humble congratulations to the National Gallery and the Government on keeping in this country these two very exceptional works of art. The hon. Member for Burslem seemed to imply that the price paid for the Titian and the other picture was exorbitant. I do not think that he wished to insinuate but he did infer that the price was an artificial price which had been inflated by speculation amongst the dealers. With a great deal of what he said on that subject, anyone who has had anything to do with the purchase of pictures will agree, but in this particular instance, certainly in the case of the Titian, there is not the slightest doubt that had the Duke of Northumberland wished to sell the picture in the United States of America, he could easily have got £200,000 if not £250,000 for it. It happens that in the United States to-day there are some 20 or 30 multimillionaires to whom £100,000 is about the same as £200, and they are prepared to pay these artificial prices for these pictures. Therefore the efforts of generous people in this country, who desire to retain these pictures for the nation, are quite inadequate to prevent their sale and export across the Atlantic, and it is perfectly right that the Government should step in and assist the donations of private individuals for the retention of these pictures. In view of the fact that in this case double the figure could with out doubt have been obtained in the United States I think the gratitude of the nation is due to the seller as well as to the donors.
The hon. Member opposite touched upon a subject on which he will find much sympathy on this side of the House, that if
you give a grant of this nature and this size for this purpose it is difficult to refuse a grant for things like national opera and art schools. I hope the action of the Government, agreed upon by various Governments in the past, will mean the adoption of a definite policy of assisting art in various directions whether in opera or art schools. I should like to ask whether it is possible when pictures are purchased by the Trustees of the National Gallery with the assistance of a grant from the taxpayers of this country, for them to be shown in other galleries throughout the country. I do not know whether the regulations of the National Gallery prohibit the exhibition of their pictures in other galleries, but in cases where the taxpayer has made a substantial grant of money in order to procure pictures for the nation I think the Trustees of the National Gallery should have wider powers for showing these pictures and should be able to loan them to other galleries in different parts of the country. I am delighted that this grant has been given, and when other pictures are discovered which are considered to be of national importance I hope the Government will not hesitate to come forward and retain them in this country. In addition to the aesthetic and artistic value which they possess they have a distinct commercial value, because they attract tourists to this country and art students as well in order to study our art treasures.

Lord BALNIEL: I only desire to emphasise the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has made. He has said that the Duke of Northumberland could have received a great deal more in the American market, and it is fair to say that largely increased offers were actually made and were actually refused by the Duke of Northumberland. It is rather essential to make that point in view of what has been said by the light hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) who spoke in an abstract way of what the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) mentioned in a more specific way. The picture itself the hon. Member for Burslem does not like. He says it is not a very good picture. It is purely a matter of taste.

Mr. MacLAREN: I did not say that exactly. It is a remarkable work, but
there are a number of points about it which would not appear in a great masterpiece of the world.

Lord BALNIEL: I agree, but largely the importance of the picture is that it fills a gap in the National Gallery; a very serious and grave gap. A late Titian is what every great gallery in the world should possess. We do not possess one. But more important than that is this; that to-day owing to this addition we can say that the representation of Venetian pictures in Trafalgar Square is incomparably finer than in any gallery in the world outside Venice; some people would say finer than in any gallery in the world. It is essential to remember, quite apart from the individual merits of this picture, that it fills a gap and an important gap. I am delighted that the Financial Secretary has defended this purchase, and I hope that in the future he will adopt the same policy with the same courage and without any sense of apology whatsoever.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I regret having to differ in the slightest degree with the Government because I recognise that at Question Time to-day they made themselves a greater and a better Government by two very important decisions which were announced. Probably they will consider a little criticism of mine is not too offensive or on too jarring a note. I admit, quite frankly, that I am not a critic of pictures. I know very little about works of art. One of the reasons which drove me into the Socialist movement at a very early age was the fact that from the day I was born until I proceeded to work at my trade not only was art and music denied me, but most of the physical joys of life as well. I should be a fool if I proclaimed myself as knowing anything about art or the culture connected with it. On the other hand, I do know something about this. I have been a Member of this House for seven years and a close attendant in the Debates, and if there is one thing more than another that has impressed itself upon me it is that this House is constantly jealous of the value of money. We are constantly told about the great need to economise in every sphere of life, to save, and watch every penny of expenditure.
During the last year of the late Government hon. Members opposite became very
critical and were acutely desirous, and succeeded, in making economies even to the extent of getting the notepaper of the House of Commons reduced in quality. I will not say anything about the action of the late Minister of Health, who cut down in the most miserable and mean fashion the grant for the maintenance of children; that would be out of order, but let me say this. Here we are to-day passing an additional grant of £106,000 and an estimated total of £140,000 for two pictures. I am told that they are works of rare art; but how many people at the best will see them? How many people will get into the National Gallery to see them? Take the masses of the people of this country, or even the population of London. How many of them will see them; and we are asked to invest £140,000 of the nation's money, money produced by the, coal miner in Durham and the steel worker in the North, and the industrial worker in the South, in two pictures to which he and his friends will be constantly denied access. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is constantly faced by requests not only By his Cabinet colleagues, but my hon. Members on this own side of the House, for small sums of money for most important purposes.
If I wanted to develop art and had to choose between giving £140,000 for two pictures, which at the best only a select few will see, or as a grant to the Board of Education to develop art in the schools throughout England and Scotland, I should be in favour of it going to the Board of Education. If art is the grand thing we say it is, is it not more important that we should spend our £140,000 in seeing that it brings the greatest amount of good to the greatest number? Who says that these are two great pictures? Someone walks in and says they are great pictures; that is all that happens. I have heard no proof that they are great pictures. At the beginning of last winter I came along in my foolish enthusiasm and asked the Government to spend £100,000 in supplying coal to unemployed people, and the argument used against me was that I must prove they were starving. I was practically told that I must bring the starving people along so that it could be seen that they were starving. When we get away from starving people and come to works of art we must accept the word of hon. Members
opposite. They are better educated, they have a more extensive knowledge, and because they say that they are great works of art everybody must agree. But are they necessarily great works of art because someone happens to say they are?
It may be perfectly true that the Duke of Northumberland could have sold his picture at a much higher figure, but that does not mean that the nation should buy it. If that is to be the standard you might extend our national activities in many other directions and much more desirable directions. In 1922, I under stand, the Government agreed to this expenditure. Here comes what is a conundrum to me. The original Estimate was £8,100 and the revised Estimate is £114,000. What has happened in the interval?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The original Estimate was the first grant made to the trustees. The increase is solely due to the pictures. The hon. Member spoke of £140,000. The sum is £106,000. That is the grant asked for from the Exchequer, and it is by that amount that the total grant to the trustees exceeds the original figure of £8,000.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What has happened is that the purchase of these two pictures has compelled the Treasury to make an additional grant of £106,000. The Financial Secretary will admit that he is constantly being urged by members of the Cabinet to spend sums of money, sometimes not as large as this. I do not blame him that in a time of national stress he has been compelled to say no, but I would add that there are 101 more desirable methods of spending £106,000 than this proposed method. A few weeks ago the Government passed a Financial Resolution for the expenditure of £3,500,000 for the unemployed, when 10,000,000 people might be chargeable to it at any time. This is £106,000 for two pictures. Considering the time in which we are living I think the grant is a scandal. I do not believe that the pictures are of any value as a national purchase. The test I apply is this: Is this expenditure good value for the nation as a whole? It might be good value for a select few who will go and look at the pictures.
How many people visit the National Gallery, and how many can tell the difference between two pictures that cost £106,000 and two other pictures that cost 106 pence? I question whether 1 per cent. of the visitors to the National Gallery can tell the difference. The nation's duty is to spend money in helping the greatest number of people at a given time, and in bringing joy to them. The best works of art are not pictures but living people and children. It would be much better if the Government spent this £106,000 on grants to local authorities all over the country in aid of much more desirable object. No one has said anything in the Debate to prove that these pictures are in any way great or that they are worth the money demanded, apart from the fact that a gang or small group has raised the price. One has come along and said, "I am giving this sum." Then another has added to that sum, and a third has added still further. That does not make a picture great. It proves only that those who have been bidding have more money than it is desirable that any group should have. There ought to be Government action not merely to limit the price of pictures, but to limit the pockets of people and to take some money from them. The Financial Secretary ought to institute a capital levy with that object in view. A group of rich people with little or nothing to do and with more money than brains have raised the price of these pictures to a fictitious level, and now the nation is called upon to spend this large sum on them. It is an indefensible expenditure, and I should be wanting in my duty if I did not divide against the Vote.

Major HILLS: The two hon. Members who have spoken against this Vote have made extremely interesting speeches and have raised points that ought to be answered. The larger part of the speech of the last speaker was devoted to the expenditure of this money and to alternate ways of spending it, and the hon. Member expressed strongly the opinion that the money ought to be spent in another way. I admit at once that it is a difficult thing to bring home to the Committee the reasons why we should support this Vote. I will give two or three reasons. It must not be forgotten that once this money is spent these pictures
will pass for all time into the possession of the nation; they will not be locked up in any private house and will not cross the Atlantic and be for ever interned in one of the galleries there, which so few in this country can ever see. The hon. Member should not forget that the pictures will be a real possession to be enjoyed by the people of this country. He asked, who goes to the National Gallery, and I think he implied that he himself never went.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have been there twice.

Major HILLS: If the hon. Member will go with me and notice the people who go there he will see that they represent all classes. Anyone can walk into the Gallery.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was there the day before yesterday. My wife made me go. I say without offence that with the exception of a comparative few they were all like myself, and did not know the difference between a good picture and a bad.

Major HILLS: My first point is that the Gallery is free to all. It belongs to everyone, and everyone who wishes to go there can go for all time. How is it possible to assess the value of a picture? I agree that that is a very difficult question. I think there are three standards by which you can arrive at the value of a picture. None of these standards is perfect, but if you take the three together you get a tolerably fair result. The first step is to take the market value, the price that people will give for a picture. Everyone must agree that these pictures have been bought very cheaply, and that had the owner wished he could have sold them for much more to someone else. Take next the opinion of what are called the experts. I do not put that too high. Experts often are wrong. I well remember the case which has already been quoted how expert after expert went into the box and swore that a certain picture was undoubtedly by Romney and that there were signs on it which no one could possibly mistake. After a trial of some days a sketch of the picture was produced, the sketch on which the picture was based, signed by Ozias Humphrey, an artist who was well known but whose pictures were not priceless.
On the whole, people who study pictures do know about them, and we must attach some weight to a large consensus of opinion. In this case there is an immense consensus of opinion in favour of the artistic value of these pictures. The third test is to take popular approval. There, again, the test is in favour of these two pictures. People will go to see them. It is not for the expert that pictures are painted. They are painted for all, and anyone who likes to go and open his eyes can enjoy the pictures. I think the hon. Member will find, if he goes to the National Gallery in future, a large number of people looking at these pictures. There have been previously pictures bought for very large sums and I have heard the same discussions about them. I heard such a discussion when the famous picture by Mabuse was bought 10 or 15 years ago. Always, it is asked, who can tell the value of pictures? You cannot be certain. I agree with one speaker who said that many of our galleries are lumbered up with very bad pictures which in the past have cost very big sums. But when a certain number of years goes by and a long consensus of judges, all down the centuries assess the value of a picture, you get something like a certainty; you get that which the hon. Member so well described, a sense of the eternal, of the universal something that the painter touches, the something that appeals to all creation. That you get more certainly the longer a picture has been open to inspection, and you are not so likely to make the mistakes that some of our provincial galleries have made.
I submit that there is a real value in art to people of all sorts and conditions. It is something very real in their minds. For myself, although I should be glad to know why this money was spent before Parliament sanctioned it, still I support the purchase of these pictures, because they are possessions which, unless we take advantage of the occasion, will be lost for ever.

Mr. BATEY: I disagree, completely with the last speaker in regard to this Vote. I find myself more in agreement with my colleague on these benches who described it as a scandal. That is the proper word to use in regard to such a Vote. The last speaker said that these pictures could be enjoyed by the people.
I come from the North of England, and I ask how many miners from the North will be able to enjoy these pictures? There is not one in 100, I would even say not one in 1,000, who will ever get near London and therefore they will have no chance of seeing these pictures. But they are called upon to help in paying for the pictures. Even poor people in London will seldom, if ever, have the chance of seeing these pictures. When I first saw this Supplementary Estimate of £106,000 for the purchase of pictures, I concluded that there must be a lot of pictures, and the last speaker told us that the pictures were cheap. When I am told, however, that there are only two pictures and that this Committee is quietly and soberly voting £106,000 for two pictures, then I say again there is only one word to describe it. It is a scandal.
I am sorry that this Government should be placed in the position of defending this Vote. We are told that this proposal belongs to the late Government. Then the late Government ought to be made to shoulder the responsibility. If at any time in the last 4½ years the Conservative Government had brought in this Vote we on the Opposition side would not only have criticised it but would have tried to defeat it. We kept asking the late Government for 4½ years to do something for the miners. We told them that the mining people were starving, and their answer always was that they had not the money to help. Yet they could get the money for the purchase of these pictures. In the recent General Election miners and their wives and families, to the number of 2,000,000 voted to put this Government into office. If those people had been told at the Election that, in the first four weeks of their term, this Government were going to pass a vote of £106,000 to buy two pictures, there would not have been a Labour Government. If the miners and miners' wives of Durham or Northumberland had been told that a Labour Government was going to give £50,000 to the Duke of Northumberland for a picture not a Labour man would have got a vote from them. The mining class would have voted solidly against any Labour man who proposed to do anything of the kind. It is all very well to say that rich men buy pictures. If they have the money I suppose they
are entitled to do it, but in this case the pictures are being bought by the nation—the poor people as well as the rich, including people who cannot afford to get bread. If it was a question of voting money for supplying people with bread, or voting money for pictures, I am in favour every time of voting money to buy bread.
If any man proposed to buy pictures out of his wages while leaving his family starving the community would condemn him. We would tell him that his family was more entitled to the money, and that his first duty was to see that his family were fed. But here we are to-day passing a Vote of this kind while thousands of our people are starving. All that we said in the last 4½ years as to starvation in the mining districts was true. Those people were starving; they are starving today, and this Government has done nothing so far in order to help them. To-day, we are saying to them in effect, "You can continue to starve; we are going to spend State money upon pictures." This sum would give to 4,000 widows a pension of 10s. each for a full year. If I were asked to decide between giving 4,000 widows 10s. a week for a year and voting money to buy these pictures I would have no hesitation in saying, "I am prepared to give the money to help widows to obtain bread." I am sorry that our Government are shouldering the responsibility for this Vote. When the late Government did not bring in the Vote they ought to have allowed the matter to drop, and it is a scandal that at the beginning of this Parliament we should, as I say, quietly and soberly—indeed with keenness in a good many parts of the Committee—vote this huge sum to buy two pictures, one of them from the Duke of Northumberland, who was never any friend of the miners.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We have had a very interesting Debate in which various points of view have been expressed, and I think it is important that views such as those which have fallen from the last speaker should be expressed and should be understood in this Committee. I will endeavour as far as I can—though perhaps not entirely to the satisfaction of my hon. Friends—to deal with the opinions which they have expressed.
Before coming to that point, however, I would like to mention some of the other questions raised in the course of this discussion. In the first place the criticism has been made that this money has been spent before Parliament has voted it, and in particular that it has been taken from the Civil Contingencies Fund. The real issue, however, is not whether the money was actually spent before Parliament sanctioned the payment, but whether the commitment was made before Parliamentary sanction was obtained for it. It must be perfectly clear that if the consent of. Parliament were asked for each individual commitment in regard to certain pictures, before the transaction and before the negotiations were carried out, the price of those pictures would go up even higher than has actually been the case. I am not dealing with the question which my hon. Friends have raised as to the merits of the policy, but if that policy is to be pursued at all, I think it must be perfectly clear that the method which has been adopted is the only possible one.
The general consent of Parliament was given to the proposal that negotiations should be conducted in private for the purchase of these pictures. Something has been said about an unlimited price, and this might give rise to a misunderstanding of the position. From the beginning an unlimited price was never proposed. A perfectly definite price was given as a maximum for which Parliament should make itself responsible, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer when he dealt with this question in 1922, said that if a larger price than the Government had in mind were offered and accepted we should have nothing but the consolation of having done our best to acquire the pictures. In other words, it was part of the understanding that only a certain price should be reached, and that if the price offered by others was larger than that, and if the owners accepted it, then as far as the public were concerned we ought not to go beyond that amount.

Mr. BUCHANAN: How was this price fixed? If the picture was worth the money, why not go to the limit? How did you arrive at the maximum?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot possibly deal with the considerations which arose in 1922, not only long before I was in the Government but long before I was in the House of Commons. A price was put down in that year as the amount which represented the limit to which we ought to go. I understand that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) said something about the Government offering a fifty-fifty contribution with regard to these pictures. Contrary to what I think has been assumed, that was not on an unlimited basis, but was up to a certain definite figure. I think that disposes of the point as to the amount. [Laughter.] Hon. Members behind me need not run away with the idea that I am going to miss their point, but I am dealing separately with the issues which various Members have raised. The point made by hon. Members behind me was that very few people would see these pictures, and that it was not open to any large section of the population to inspect them. I cannot help thinking that that view is not correct. In the first place, these galleries are open on Saturdays and on Sunday afternoons, and as far as any resident of London is concerned, no enormous expense and no physical impossibility can be involved in visiting the galleries. The fact that the whole population of London does not visit them is a matter with which we cannot deal, but the average number of people who do visit the galleries is something like 2,000 a day—I think that is for the Saturdays and Sundays.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does that include Americans?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is the figure. I listened to the hon. Member very carefully, and if I do not answer any of his points perhaps he will mention them later. That figure represents something like 200,000 people in the course of the year, which is not an inconsiderable number. The further point was raised that this might be all right for London, but that people who lived elsewhere had no opportunity of visiting the pictures. There are two answers to that point. In the first place, a very large number of people, though they do not live in London, visit London at some time in their lives as a part of their holidays, and any of these people who are interested in art will take the opportunity of going to the
National Gallery. There is another answer suggested by a question which was raised from the benches opposite. One hon. Member asked if these pictures might be lent to other exhibitions. I understand that matter is under consideration, and, if the question should be decided in the affirmative, that would be a further answer to the criticism that the pictures are of no value to those who are not resident in London.
Let me come to the main body of complaint voiced by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and afterwards expressed in different ways by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). The hon. Member for Burslem said that this was not a real value, but a rarity value, and that is a very important point for consideration. Unfortunately, however, we are not able to distinguish between the means by which so-called value is obtained. The choice before the Government in a case like this is perfectly simple. We have two alternatives. Either we can let these pictures go out of the country, or in some cases be included in small private collections, where they would be visible only to small, selected members of the population, or they can be bought partly by the National Exchequer and partly from other funds for the nation, and then be available for the public as a whole. This list of pictures that were going to be bought was not a very long list. If these two pictures formed only a very small part of the total number to be obtained, and this was an operation going on for many years to come, I should agree that we ought to consider very carefully whether we could afford to do it, but these two pictures are in some ways the very gems of the list which was put forward. This is a very particular case, coming in this particular year, and I think that that has a bearing on the question. But it is always open to hon. Members to say they would rather turn this money into bread or something else which would meet the physical needs of the people. Those who feel acutely, as we all do, the great sufferings which our people have gone through must have a great deal of
sympathy with that point of view, but, at the same time, I think we must realise that
Man shall not live by bread alone.

Mr. BATEY: He cannot live without it.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is true, but it is part of the case that we on this side of the House make that it is the larger things of life which are denied to the poorer classes in this country, and among those larger things of life, the wider developments of existence, beauty and art must be included. Though I would not vote for this money to the exclusion of matters required for the physical and ordinary well-being of the people, I hope the Committee will come to a decision now to grant this Vote, which will secure as treasures for all the people of the nation these works of art, which by every standard that anyone attempts to put forward are masterpieces of their kind.

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has quite grasped the point of the question which was asked in regard to the Civil Contingencies Fund. The hon. Gentleman said, and said quite rightly, that when you are making a deal of this sort, you must bargain in private, so that the prices may not be put up against you, and that you cannot come to this House before the bargain is concluded. That is agreed on all hands. It is, if I may say so, obvious common sense, but the Civil Contingencies Fund is a very special bit of apparatus. It is the piece of machinery which in very exceptional cases allows the Treasury to make an actual issue out of public funds without the specific authority of Parliament—the actual issue, not the commitment. In this case what has happened is that payments have been made. A sum of £106,000 has been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund in order to purchase these pictures, and, if I may specify the point, it is this: I have no doubt that there were special circumstances in this case which made it necessary for the actual payments to be made in advance of the authority of Parliament, but equally it is always the case that when such a payment is made in advance of the authority of Parliament, some explanation is required and is
offered, and I am quite sure there is some explanation that can be offered in this case.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sorry if I did not deal with the point, but this is the position: In the first place, the bargain had to be made before the House voted the money at all. I think the right hon. Member agrees with that. Owing to the special circumstances of this year, it has not been possible for a matter of two or three months to bring forward Supplementary Estimates at all, but this money was required at shorter notice than that, and under those circumstances, in a case of that kind, in view of the fact that the principle was agreed upon by Parliament long ago and has never been questioned, I do not think there was any real irregularity.

Mr. MacLAREN: I know the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is labouring under extreme difficulty, because he is defending a case which ought to be defended by the party opposite, but the point is this, that Parliament was never asked. It was never said to Parliament, "Here are two pictures of enormous rarity, and we want you to give your assent to our spending a round sum upon them." At no time has Parliament ever considered it. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), at the request of the right hon. Member for Hythe (Sir P. Sassoon), said he would consider the purchase if the prices were not extravagant, away back in August, 1922, and the next we hear about it is that we have to foot a bill of this sort to-day.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is not quite the point raised by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), with which I was attempting to deal. I think it is correct to say that the policy of successive Governments and the general policy of the House did entitle negotiations to be carried out in the way in which they were carried out. That is one point, but that is not the point which the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks takes. He says, Granted that we were right to enter into commitments, even so it was wrong to spend money out of this Fund, and we ought to have waited until we could have obtained the money in other ways.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not saying it is wrong. I am saying it is a matter in regard to which this House is accustomed to ask for an explanation, and I believe the hon. Gentleman is approaching the explanation which is usually given and which is usually considered satisfactory.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The commitment was justified by the fact that the money had to be found at once, and it had to be found at a time when Parliament was not in a position to carry through a Supplementary Estimate. In these circumstances, the usual course of paying the money out of the Civil Contingencies Fund and coming to Parliament afterwards was taken. We could have camouflaged the thing by pretending that the money had not really been paid—there are various ways in which it could be done—but the straightforward way, which we took, was to state that the money had been paid out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, and then to come to Parliament and say, taking all the facts into account, that this was the reasonable, and natural, and proper way of dealing with the situation.

Sir H. YOUNG: I understand the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to assure the Committee that the Estimate has been presented at the earliest possible moment, and that is a satisfactory explanation.

Mr. KELLY: I want to enter my protest against this money being spent at this time. I have as much love for pictures as has any other man, out when one finds the demand being made from the other side of the House for us to study economy and to be very careful about spending money at this time, when both the other parties will remind us of any mistakes that we may happen to make in spending a few pounds in a particular direction, it is very strange to find them in agreement this afternoon on the expenditure of this £106,000 for these pictures.
I do not want to give a silent vote against this proposal. When one realises the suffering in the country, the great army of unemployed, and the threatened rupture in some industries of this country, when we are making demands upon the people to study economy, it is a strange time to come here and ask us to agree to the expenditure
of this money. Much as one loves pictures and loves to have the eye pleased and the mind satisfied, I think this is the wrong moment for us to appeal for this money. It has been stated that these pictures, being in the National Gallery, are available for everyone, particularly for those in London, to enjoy, but I would like to remind the Committee that there are many of the millions in London who, no matter how cheap it may be to reach Trafalgar Square, are not able to do even that in order to enjoy the pictures in the National Gallery, and it argues a lack of knowledge of what is going on in our own town that such statements should be made. For the reason that this is the wrong time to ask for such sums of money, I intend to vote against this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. HARDIE: I am sorry I have not been able to listen to this Debate, because I wanted to hear what was the Government's explanation. I know very well that this is not something that was born as part of the work of the present Government, but that it comes from a previous Government, and it is a very unhealthy heritage. I have been dealing during the last hour with people representing certain bodies in my constituency, where the question of bread has become so serious that they have got even to gather money to send someone up to London to see what can be done. The hon. Gentleman in charge of this Supplementary Estimate said:
Man shall not live by bread alone.
Those of us who were brought up in Scotland not only know that phrase, from our early religious instruction, but we were taught what it means. When the question of bread was ever related to a religious lesson, it was always shown to us that Christ Himself gave bread before He started to preach. You cannot get a spirit of reflection, even in the appreciation of art, until you have that mental balance which comes from a well-nurtured body. It is all very well for those who do not need to worry where their bread is coming from to-morrow to dilate round this sphere called art. It is one thing for those who are secure in their bread to go to a gallery and look at fine pictures and discuss them, and quite a different thing to speak of art when you are in a
state of starvation. The people in a certain area of my constituency are no less qualified to judge art than others.
The whole of this question is divorced from what might be called the centre of the argument, which is the getting of some artistic works for the nation. That is really a secondary argument when you have human flowers dying by the wayside. What shall it profit a man if he has all the pictures, but no bread for his children? That is the truthful picture at the moment. If you want to preserve a real picture, let this House stand first for that which is in human form. No matter how powerful may be the genius of the painter, no matter how powerful the touch of the brush, they never can put upon canvas that which belongs in reality to the human being. Are we, then, going to sit silent and see money spent without consideration for the human factor? The Minister of Health and his assistants were chiefly responsible for bringing about what was called the economy stunt, and now they are ready to see that the duke's bread, as I may call it, is secured.
If there had been any spiritual meaning in these people, they would have given these pictures to the nation without asking that someone should be made the poorer. They are ready to do this in order to get art for the nation, but they took £12,000 from the money with which to pay for milk for the children. This is the kind of thing which shows whether there is any artistic feeling in hon. Members opposite. You have to judge by their deeds whether there is any reality in their statements. If they believe in real art, the first thing that would come to their mind would be God's art as we have it in the human being. The real art in life is that the full divine purpose in life should be allowed to be expressed, and yet here you have this claim being made by a noble Duke, and in order that he may have security some people must be made poorer. In order to preserve art we are to make starvation more intense. I am not going to make the plea that I am interested in art. I do not put that forward as an argument. I have stood too often beside people in art galleries listening to their vapourings about shadow and shape, knowing that they only use words which they have heard other people use. Real art will
always be expressed, no matter what the education of the individual has been. What is the real human picture? The real human picture for which we Socialists have been fighting is the realisation of the fact that on this earth there is a divine abundance, and more than the human race can use.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I think that the hon. Member is getting rather far afield. The question before the Committee is the spending of this money.

Mr. HARDIE: And the spending of this money entitles me to my last sentence. We have a divine abundance of all the things which the human race needs; we have all the figures, all the colours, every pigment required to make a divine picture of the human race. That is what we stand for; not to make the Duke richer because he hands what he calls art treasures to the State, and I hope that the Committee will make an emphatic protest against this way of disposing of money.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX.

NATIONAL RADIUM TRUST.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of the National Radium Trust.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Greenwood): I hope that with this Vote we shall pass from the stormy atmosphere of art to the serener atmosphere of science. I do not imagine that this Vote will create any amount of controversy. It is an inheritance which has come to me from the late Government, and relates to the provision of radium. The purpose of the Vote is to provide for a grant in aid of the National Radium Trust, subject to a maximum of £100,000, based on £l for every £l of voluntary subscriptions; for augmenting the supply of radium for use in the treatment of the sick and in the advance of knowledge of the beet method of rendering radiological treatment. The money will be expended by the National Radium Trust under the terms of a Royal Charter incorporating that body. Hon. Members will remember that earlier this year there
was published the Report of a Sub-Committee of the Civil Research Committee, dealing with the question of radium, and that Committee recommended that steps should be taken to ensure the acquisition of an additional 20 grammes of radium element by instalments for medical purposes.
The sub-committee suggested that the necessary sums might be raised by the Government in part, and partly by public subscriptions on a £l for £1 basis. They suggested also that a body of trustees should be appointed to hold the fund, and to purchase and hold the radium; and that another body, the Radium Commission, should be appointed to deal with the distribution, allocation and use of radium, having regard both to treatment, to economy in use of radium, and to research developments. In the days of the late Government, on 16th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House that the Government had accepted the financial recommendation of the radium sub-committee, and were prepared to contribute from public funds a sum not exceeding £100,000, providing £1 for every £l raised by private subscription, the money to be devoted to the purchase of the additional radium which the subcommittee felt the nation required. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer explained his view that there would be little difficulty in raising the money by public subscription. An appeal for a National Radium Fund was made over the signatures of many eminent medical men and other people towards the end of April, and in addition to that the Thanksgiving Fund for the King's Recovery was also associated with it, and as a result more than £100,000 was raised by public subscription in a short time. Parliament, accordingly, is now asked to make its maximum grant of £100,000 to put with the sum obtained as a result of the public appeal.
The recommendations of the Radium Sub-Committee were accepted in principle by the late Government, subject to further consideration on matters of detail. Since that time a consultation has taken place with the leaders of the various branches of the medical profession, and certain minor changes have been made in the proposals of the sub-committee. It was finally thought to be expedient to appoint the Radium Trust and the Radium Commission
through the instrumentality of a Royal Charter, and a Royal Charter has now been received from the King empowering us to establish the Trust and the Commission. The Trust is the body which will hold the money and will be responsible for the actual ownership of the radium. The Commission will be the body responsible for its custody, its care and its utilisation. The Radium Trust will be constituted substantially in the manner suggested in the report of the Radium Sub-Committee and is to consist of the Lord President of the Council, who will be chairman, the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the President of the Royal Society, the President of the Royal College of Physicians in London, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, England, the Chairman of the Central Liaison Committee for Voluntary Hospitals in Scotland, the President of the Royal Society of Medicine and the President of the British Medical Association. The Trust are also required to co-opt two medical members of the Commission, and may co-opt not more than three other persons. That matter is now under consideration, and it will, as I have explained, be the function of this body to accept and to hold the funds which have been subscribed and to purchase the radium.
The Radium Commission which, as I have explained, will be responsible for the actual custody, distribution and the use of the radium, will consist of a chairman, to be appointed by the Trust; four members nominated by, respectively, myself, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Medical Research Council and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research one each; and six members having special knowledge and experience of the application of radium in the treatment of the sick. These six persons are to be appointed by the Trustees from a panel of 12, who will be selected by the heads of the medical profession named in the Royal Charter. This week there will be held a meeting which, I understand, will select the panel of 12. Within a few days a preliminary meeting of the Radium Trust will be held, and arrangements are being put in hand as rapidly as practicable under the circumstances. It is quite clear, as these bodies
have not yet formally met, that there may be some little delay in getting the scheme fully into operation. The radium, has to be purchased and purchased under the most advantageous terms. The Commission has to consider what are the best ways, the most effective ways, in which the radium can be used; but my Noble Friend the President of the Council and I have been very anxious that the matter should be put into operation, and within a day or two the Trust will hold its first meeting.
Hon. Members will have seen from the Estimate that the Vote is to be accounted for by the Ministry of Health, but the expenditure of the grant-in-aid will not be accounted for in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor General. By the terms of the Royal Charter, the accounts of the Trust and of the Radium Commission are to be prepared in the form and manner and audited in the fashion that the Treasury may direct, and the Radium Trust are required, if the Treasury so desire, to furnish to Parliament reports and audited financial statements relating to the work of the Trust and the work of the Commission. I undertand that the Treasury propose to ask the Auditor General to audit the accounts of the National Radium Trust and the Radium Commission, and to direct the Trust, as it has power to do, to furnish an annual report, including its audited financial statement, together with the audited report and the audited financial statement of the Trust itself, to Parliament, so that in that way Parliament will be able to keep ultimate control over that part of the Fund which has been raised from public sources. There is little more which I need say. I can only hope that the arrangements which are now being made will make effective use of this additional supply of radium which I hope and trust will be in the hands of the Radium Commission at the earliest possible date.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has favoured the House once again with a very clear and concise statement, and I think the House is fully seized of the arrangements contemplated in connection with the expenditure of this money. It is a very vital and important matter. I think, everyone will agree that the expenditure of this considerable sum of money represents a substantial step in the campaign against one
of the most distressing maladies known to mankind. Unfortunately, the cases of cancer in this country are on the increase, I am afraid, and up to the moment no investigation has been able to show what is the real cause of the disease; but I think it will be generally agreed that radium is certainly one of the most hopeful forms of treatment to-day, and in this country the demands for it are increasing and urgent. I think the expenditure of this money is attended with a certain amount of difficulty, because radium is found in only very few spots in the world and is a very costly substance indeed. If any hon. Member has taken the trouble to read the report of the Radium Sub-Committee, he will find there an examination of the number of places where it is possible to obtain radium at the present time. One is almost driven to the conclusion that the money which is to obtain some 20 grammes of radium for this country will, if the radium is to be obtained immediately, have to be expended in one country, which is practically the only country which is supplying radium in any quantities to-day, and that is Belgium—it comes from the Belgian Congo.
I can only express the hope—I am afraid I cannot say more, because under the terms of the Charter the purchase of the radium is to be left to the trustees—that the greatest care will be used and the greatest vigilance exercised in order to avoid anything in the nature of undue demands in the matter of price being made upon this country. It is perfectly true that in this report references are made to radium being discovered in certain parts of the British Empire, but at the present time it does not appear as though any of this money can be spent, immediately at any rate, in any part of the Empire. Perhaps whoever replies to this debate will be able to say whether anything further has been heard as regards the possibilities of Australia, because I notice that on page 15 of the report it states that the question of the radium resources of Australia are engaging the attention of the Commonwealth Council of Scientific and Industrial Research.
It would be a great blessing to mankind, and desirable also from the point of view of expenditure, if radium in any quantity were found in Australia or in any other part of the British Empire, or,
for that matter, in any other part of the world, because undoubtedly the trustees are in the position of having to obtain this quantity of radium for the people of this country while there is only, as far as I can see, one source to which they can go, and that does suggest awkward possibilities as to the price. I do not for one moment say, because I have no evidence of it, that there is anything in the nature of a hold-up in this connection. When we hear of the large prices which are being demanded for radium it is perfectly right that we should recall that the process of extracting radium is a very expensive one. I suppose considerable capital has to be sunk, and the substance itself, when obtained, never needs replacing, and the cost of extracting it is very high. Those things should be remembered. I notice in the report that various statements have been made by the responsible authorities, and it may be possible that some better arrangement will be made for obtaining radium. A suggestion has been made that the purchase of radium should be entrusted to the League of Nations, who should purchase it for other countries besides our own. That may be an ideal which we shall reach some day, but in the interval the urgency of obtaining radium for this country is very great, and I shall support this estimate, believing as I do that it is the only practical way of obtaining a supply for this country at the present time. I should like to know whether there is any prospect of more radium being produced within the British Empire itself. I hope the expenditure of this particular sum will arouse a good deal more interest and attention as to the possibilities of radium than has hitherto been given to it.
It is a matter of regret to read in the report that, while it is perfectly true, for instance, that the best radium practice is as good in this country as in any other country, certainly we are not leading the way in developing this treatment, and such countries as Sweden and France are ahead of us in the provision they make for the treatment of people who are suffering from cancer. I hope we shall not remain much longer in a secondary position in regard to this matter, quite apart from the expenditure of this money. When we are voting this considerable
sum, may I suggest to the Minister of Health the advisability of increasing the number of surgeons connected with radium treatment. Not only do we want a good deal more radium, but we want a good many more skilled people to administer it. One can readily see that radium is a double-edged weapon, and, if it is not used skillfully, it can undoubtedly bring tremendous mischief in its train. At the same time as we require more radium we require more skilled people to treat it. I have been asked to put a question to the Minister, and it is that when the distribution of radium is made there will be fair treatment so far as the various hospitals up and down the country are concerned. I have no doubt that will be done.
I know, having regard to the amount of radium available, that up to the present time there has been a great waste going on, and I think the various kinds of diseases likely to be successfully treated by radium should be concentrated in certain centres. This would allow a great saving to be effected. One has to recognise the various individual interests of hospital associations, and I am afraid, in many respects, that what I have suggested may be somewhat difficult in practice. In France, they have a dozen special centres for the treatment of various diseases by radium. In that way, they are able to save a good deal of waste, and they are able to use radium more frequently to the advantage of the people than we are able to do, because our centres are scattered and down the country among a large number of institutions. I am very glad that this Estimate has been presented, and I am sure it will meet with approval in all parts of the House. This is a practical means of acquiring a sufficient amount of radium to meet the immediate needs of so many people who are suffering from cancer, and who very often are needlessly suffering from this terrible disease. I am sure that no one in this House would desire to challenge the expenditure of a sum of money which will do so much to relieve, and, we hope, in many cases cure, a very large number of people who are suffering from a very terrible disease.

Dr. HASTINGS: I hope the Committee will agree with the terms of this Supplementary
Estimate, because the terrible need for more radium is constantly being pressed upon me. Like a good many other members of my profession who are dealing with cancer, I am constantly finding that I need radium for the treatment of my patients, and it is very hard to obtain it. Yesterday morning in hospital I saw a good many cases of cancer and for two of them I needed radium. I asked the radium officer at the hospital with which I am connected how soon a supply of radium could be obtained and he said, "Not for a month in either of those two cases." That means that while these cases are waiting, and I am waiting to carry out the proper method of treatment, the disease must be steadily advancing. The same thing applies to other hospitals. To-morrow morning I hope to be using radium for the treatment of cancer, but I have had to wait 20 days to obtain the necessary supply commercially.
I am quite sure that every hon. Member of this House wishes to see this country keep its place in scientific advancement of medicine as well as in other subjects. It is with regret that I have to agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) to the effect that during the last few years a much greater advance had been made in radium treatment in Sweden and France than in this country. Anyone who makes inquiries as to why this is the case will find that the Government of France possesses no less than 31.5 grammes of radium which it allocates to various treatment centres, whereas as far as I know the Government of this country, through the Medical Research Council, possesses not more than 2.4 grammes. Some two years ago I had occasion to investigate the results of radium treatment of cancer of one organ of the body which involved the results of an experience of some 15 years. When I came to look carefully into these results, I was obliged to confess how unsatisfactory they were. Good has undoubtedly been done by treatment in some cases, but I could not point with certainty to a single patient that had been cured. But to-day things are very different. During the past two years extraordinary advances have been made, and now we are able to do with radium things which we never dreamt were possible
two or three years ago. Now in the opinion of many surgeons it is better to treat a good many forms of cancer, even in their early stages by radium rather than by cutting away the growth, because the radium treatment leaves the condition of the patient much more like the normal. We have to remember the terrible ravages of cancer at the present time. It is a fact that no less than 54,000 people died of cancer in this country in 1927. There is no doubt that a good many of those lives might have been saved had there been a sufficient supply of radium in this country to give them the necessary treatment.
Treatment by radium is not a simple thing, because it requires experience and research. The recent improvement in this and other countries in this kind of treatment is the result of research. In my opinion the advances made in this country have been due to a very large extent to the exceedingly wise use which the Medical Research Council has made of the 2.4 grammes which the Government placed in their charge. Efficient treatment by radium means two things; in the first place it means that there must be careful, painstaking research and secondly pooled experience. When these two things are combined together, we shall get the advance which we all desire to see.
7.0 p.m.
I see in the terms of this Supplementary Estimate that the Government are prepared to give pound for pound for that collected by voluntary subscription up to £100,000. I cannot help saying that I wish the Government had undertaken a bolder policy. The shortage of radium in this country is, it seems to me, a national disgrace. To give help and hope and a fair prospect of a cure to those suffering from the dreadful disease of cancer, appears to me to be a national duty. I should have liked to have seen the Government shouldering this duty completely and to leave sufferers from cancer even to the extent of 50 per cent. to the whims of private charity, seems to me to be a misfortune. The Government have decreed otherwise. I hope the House will support this Estimate because, as far as it goes, it is a good one, but I hope that the next time the Government deals with the sick of this country it will be willing to go the whole way.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: I rise to put the position of the provincial hospitals in this matter, and I should like an assurance from the Minister of Health that the provincial hospitals will get equal treatment with the London hospitals in the distribution of radium. They have a very strong claim, because the general taxpayers of the whole country have contributed £100,000 towards this fund, while a large part of the money voluntarily subscribed has also been subscribed by people living in the provinces. The last speaker mentioned that, when he inquired whether it would be possible to get a supply of radium, he was met by the answer that one month must elapse before the radium could be supplied. That shows what a great danger there is, if the radium is concentrated entirely in the London area, that, the provincial hospitals may find themselves without the necessary supplies for the immediate treatment of cancer cases. What will be the position of provincial hospitals when they come to buy radium themselves out of the moneys which they have themselves raised locally? Will they have the right to send the funds they have raised to the central commission and to ask the commission to buy for them? It has been mentioned that there is only one source of supply, from which radium can be obtained at the present time, namely, the Belgian Congo, and it follows that this powerful buying agency, the central commission, will force up the price against the buyers representing the provincial hospitals unless those hospitals can get that body to buy on their behalf. Have they the right under this scheme to send their own contributions to the central commission and to get the commission to buy for them?
The Minister dealt with the question of how the members of the Radium Trust and the Radium Commission will be nominated. I take it that the London hospitals will be represented on both bodies. If that be so, I should like an assurance from him that the provincial hospitals will also have a representative on the Radium Commission. I do not know whether the central commission has the power to make any free grants from the central fund to provincial hospitals who are administering their own-funds or indeed to any of the other hospitals; but, if the central commission has that power, I should like an
assurance that the provincial hospitals will be treated pari passu with the London hospitals. The provincial hospitals do not ask for different treatment from the London hospitals but for treatment on exactly the same footing and that, in any grants of radium which may be made from the central fund, they shall receive exactly the same treatment.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I want in a very few words to express my disapproval of the dimensions of this Vote. We are told that 54,000 people die of cancer every year. That represents something like one in seven of the deaths, which means that seven out of every eight of us here in this House now are not going to die of cancer. But, if we happen to be born under an unlucky star, one in eight of us is going to die of that painful malady, one of the most painful known to medical science. We are going to vote £100,000 for this purpose when we have just voted £106,000 for pictures. How much radium will it buy? It costs £1,500 to supply the radium necessary for the best treatment, and that means that £100,000 will pay for treating 66 women. I have it on good authority that the cost of the radium salts used surgically on the breast is £1,500 compared with £800 for the brain, and £120 for the tongue. When we think of the number of people who are now suffering from cancer, we must realise that we are not even scratching the surface of the problem. I believe that not one person in 50 who ought to get the treatment is getting it. £100,000, and we pretend that we are dealing seriously with the evil! It is just one-eightieth part of the price of a modern Dreadnought. If we had any sense of proportion, we would realise it was more necessary to spend money on radium than on Dreadnoughts.
This £100,000 is not merely for radium salts, but it is to provide for the advancement of knowledge of the best methods of rendering such treatment. This is what we are going to take for research work as well. It does not pay individual surgeons to invest their time and money in learning how to use radium. There were two twin radiologists who decided not long ago that
they would commit suicide, because they could not afford to carry on. There is a surgeon in Manchester who, if he had devoted his time and his very great abilities to an ordinary practice, would have made a large income, but that man, after investing his best abilities and his capital, is rewarded by poverty, and the hat has to go round in order to provide him with the ordinary necessities of life. It is a positive disgrace and a shame that our real benefactors, the men who are doing something to make this world less a home of agony, cannot provide for their bread and butter in their old age or ill-health. Sir Ronald Ross, perhaps the greatest benefactor of the human race now alive, is dependent on the mercies of charity. If the House knew what the real requirements were, what a terrible disease this was, and how more and more people were getting this disease, we would be glad to spend much more than £100,000 on research work and on the purchase of radium.
As to the supply of radium, I would remind the Committee that in 1904, long before the deposits of uranium were discovered in the Congo, radium cost from £2 to £4 per milligramme. In spite of the fact that the process is enormously simplified, the price in 1928 was over £11 per milligramme. I suggest that the Government might think in terms of controlling its own supply, of investing money in securing a source of raw material by buying the areas where pitch blende exists, and thus getting radium perhaps at a less price than in 1904 instead of at the present price of £11 per milligramme. If we could reduce the price of radium by applying the machinery of Socialism, we would benefit not only the people of these islands but the whole of the human race. I am particularly glad that my first effort in this House has been to speak a few words on a matter which I consider to be of overwhelming importance, and I am very sorry that the Government have not seized the opportunity of spending much more money on research and on securing the indispensable radium salts.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: The Committee generally will welcome the proposal now before it. There is no greater service the House can perform than to take practical steps for the alleviation of pain and suffering. I, like the previous
speaker, deplore the fact that the Minister proposes to set a limit of £100,000 upon this expenditure. After all, private individuals outside are raising a large sum, and the least we can do is to say that we are willing to give pound for pound up to any sum the public may care to subscribe. I hope that it may be found possible to make some more generous provision in that direction. I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions. What steps are being taken to stimulate research and to increase the supply of this very necessary commodity? Is a report to be submitted to this House, will it be an annual report, or will it be incorporated in the Report of the Minister of Health? We want to have the facts and figures brought to the attention of the House so as to stimulate interest in this question and obtain support for any future grants that may be asked for.

Commander BELLAIRS: The Minister of Health has given us a very full account of this Vote, but I would like to ask him one question. He told us about the Radium Trust and the Radium Commission. He is a member of the Radium Trust, and he also nominates a number of members of the Radium Commission. As he presented this Vote, will he answer questions concerning the operations of the Radium Trust and the Radium Commission? Several speakers have dwelt on the great possibilities of radium, and have shown that this is a matter of life and death to people in all countries. It is for that reason that, from time to time during the last two or three years, I have asked the question whether this matter is going to be referred to the League of Nations. Hitherto, up to the time of the Report of the Radium Sub-Committee, I have been told to await that Report. I want to know from the Government whether they will actively bring this question of radium before the League of Nations, because it is obvious, from the speeches that have been made, that a virtual monopoly is held by the Belgians in the Belgian Congo, and they are able to dictate what supplies shall be given to the world and what prices shall be charged to the world. This is not an ordinary question of a monopoly, like an industrial monopoly. It is not like the monopoly of helium in the United States. It is a monopoly of something which is required by medical science and research in every nation in the world, and, if a nation in
any way puts monopoly prices on it, every endeavour ought to be made through the League of Nations to bring that nation to reason, and, if necessary, that nation must be pilloried before the whole world.
As regards the remarks of the hon. Member who spoke from below the Gangway, the sum is a small one, but it is a beginning. I imagine that it is about £230,000, including the amount subscribed by private individuals, and everyone well knows that, as experience is gained, we shall probably spend a great deal more. But we gain our experience gradually as to what is required, and this Radium Trust, and the Radium Commission especially, will focus attention in a way that has never been done before; and I have not the slightest doubt that before long the State will be contributing something in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. It is far more important that we should get this question settled at the League of Nations as soon as possible, and that we should, through the machinery of the League, pool research work and experience throughout the world.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: I should like to support what the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) has just said, and I want to say a word or two from the point of view, not of the distribution of radium, but of its production. The hon. and gallant Member has just reminded the House, and the Sub-Committee point out in their Report, that radium is a monopoly, and that there is only one reliable source of supplies, namely, the Katanga mines in the Belgian Congo. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned a Belgian company, but it does not necessarily follow that it is entirely con-trolled by Belgian people. As he probably knows, the list of directors shows one or two names of well-known British people. I notice, in reading through the Report, that the Sub-Committee go out of their way to express thanks to the manager of the Katanga mines for information supplied to Lord Rayleigh, the chairman of the Sub-Committee. Nothing is said in the Report, however, as to whether any information was given to Lord Rayleigh as to the reason why Radium Belge considers it necessary to sell radium on a sliding scale.
The prices charged at the present time by Radium Belge, who hold the monopoly,
are £10,000 per gramme to European countries, £12,000 per gramme to Great Britain and some Colonies, and £14,000 per gramme to America. I think that probably the principle is that, the more money you have, the more you have to pay. It would have been interesting had Lord Rayleigh discovered from Radium Beige why they find it necessary—there is no secrecy about it—to impose a sliding scale of prices for this commodity. We hear a great deal in this House, and probably will hear much more before this Parliament is over, about irreconcilible views concerning Capitalism and Socialism, concerning production for profit and production for use, and there will probably be many stirring Debates on that subject, but there is one point upon which I think everyone in the House will agree, and that is that, if anyone exploits the element radium for private profit, his name should be "Mud." It seems to me to be a terrible thought that any company or any individual should be making large profits from a precious commodity for want of which many lives are being lost.
I am speaking only as an ordinary layman who has no medical knowledge, but is interested in the production of radium, but to my mind the recommendations of the Sub-Committee—and I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree with me—do not altogether complete the subject. After you have read the Report and the recommendations of the Sub-Committee, you still find that you have somewhere to go, you find that you are left in the air with the thought that radium is a monopoly in the hands of one company. The Committee recommend that:
Steps should be taken at once to ensure the acquisition by instalments of 20 additional grammes of radium element for medical purposes.
They point out that there is approximately a little over 20 grammes in this country at the present time, and that we ought to have about 45 grammes, and so they recommend that steps should be taken to obtain 20 additional grammes. They state in several places in their Report that, if they could purchase or place an order for 20 grammes at one time, they would be able to obtain, the element more cheaply. I do not quite know what reason the Sub-Committee
have for thinking that they will be able to obtain it more cheaply, seeing that the commodity is exceedingly rare, and is, as has already been said, in the hands of a monopoly at the present time. Presumably the Sub-Committee are taking steps, or very soon will take steps, to purchase 20 additional grammes of radium.
Then they propose, as the Minister of Health stated, that a body of trustees should be set up with three objects—first, to hold the funds; secondly, to purchase radium, and, thirdly, to appoint a Commission. The Minister of Health dealt with the list of persona whom it is proposed to constitute, in a few days as I gather, the National Radium Trustees. I am not going to take any objection at all to the list that has been given, but, if hon. Members who are interested in the matter will go over the list for themselves, they will see that the National Radium Trustees are going to consist, if I followed my right hon. Friend aright, of:

The Lord President of the Council;
The Minister of Health;
The Secretary of State for Scotland;
The President of the Royal Society;
The President of the Royal College of Physicians of London;
The President of the Royal College of Surgeons of England;
The Chairman of the Central Liaison Committee of Voluntary Hospitals in Scotland;
The President of the Royal Society of Medicine;
The President of the British Medical Association;

and two other members to be co-opted; and I think he added, although it is not in this Report, three more who were to be co-opted. The point which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to, if she can, or take into consideration, is that this list of persons who are to be the National Radium Trustees includes no one at all who has any qualifications to deal with what I think is the very vital question of supplies. Are these Trustees going to buy radium from the monopoly, Radium Belge, at its own price, and are they going to be content with that and make no further efforts to obtain any more? The Minister stated in his opening speech that three others
might be co-opted, and I hope that advantage will be taken of that to put on to the Board someone qualified to deal with the very vital question of where we are going to get the supplies of radium from.
That brings me to this further point, that, if this is going to be the success which I am sure everyone in all parts of the House and in the country wishes it to be, the National Radium Trustees will have to have further powers beyond those suggested in this Report, and I should like to give the reasons, from the Sub-Committee's own Report, why it is absolutely necessary that they should acquire further powers. The powers that I suggest should be granted to them are powers of research and of aking steps to try to discover new sources of supply. They have no such powers at the present time. The Sub-Committee recommend that:
A body of trustees should be appointed entitled the National Radium Trustees, whose duty it should be to hold the funds provided by Parliament or otherwise and to purchase therewith and hold radium for use by the Radium Commission "—
that is to say, the Radium Commission referred to in a later paragraph of the Report. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that, if she looks up the records, she will find a question that I asked in the last Parliament in an endeavour to ascertain whether it is proposed that the Trustees should have such powers as I suggest. I think that an extension of their powers will be required, and, if hon. Members will turn to page 19 of the Report, they will find, under the heading "The Cost of Radium," this statement:
It must be borne in mind that in most cases radium has only been detected after a period of prospecting more prolonged and expensive than is usually necessary in other forms of mining.
Who is going to do all this prolonged prospecting and exploring and mining? Obviously, one cannot expect people to go drifting about the world and spending large sums of money on prospecting, which is a very speculative business. Here is another statement:
From our survey of the sources of radium production it will be seen that at the present time practically the whole of the world's annual production of radium comes from the Katanga mines in the Belgian Congo. Radium has been and is being worked in this and other countries,
but at the present time such production as still continues is very small and cannot be regarded as affording a possible source for the supply of radium in any considerable quantities. Again, indications of radium have been detected in different parts of the Empire (namely, in Australia), and in some cases the existence of promising deposits is claimed. It may be that further prospecting may ultimately show that in some cases these claims are well founded.

The question to which I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give some consideration is, by whom is further prospecting to be done? Is it to be left haphazard, to anyone who may be sufficiently interested, to go drifting about where there may be rumours, or is it going to be turned into a financial business—are we going to have companies floated on the Stock Exchange, with statements that radium is going to be discovered, and rushes of people first to one spot and then to another? It seems to me that it surely ought to be possible to give some powers to the National Radium Trustees to engage in research. The sub-committee go on to say:
The position is, therefore, that, if it were decided to make forthwith any considerable addition to the stock of radium available for medical purposes in this country, the only means of doing so would be by purchase from the Belgian producers.

It will be seen that time and again we come back to the same point which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone, and which I am endeavouring to press the Parliamentary Secretary to take into consideration. We come back every time to the point that this is a monopoly held by the company known as Radium Beige, that they charge their own prices, and that the finding of other alternative supplies is being left entirely to haphazard methods. If those interested in this matter will read the Report of the sub-committee, they will find there a list of places within the Empire, such as the Union of South Africa, New South Wales, Western Australia, India and Ceylon, where there is reason to think that radium may be found. The position is that this Committee will do well to pass this Vote, and I am sure it will be passed unanimously, but I want to urge the Parliamentary Secretary not to be content to let the question rest where it is, but to see whether there is time, even at this late hour, to give the trustees an extension
of their powers in order to enable them to assist research and to assist in a further search, particularly in parts of the British Empire where it may be possible to find further supplies of this very valuable and life-saving element. It seems to me it would be foolish on the part of the House of Commons to let this matter rest where it is at present, or merely to leave it to haphazard chance discoveries to obtain sufficient of this valuable element.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I would remind the Committee that, when this Government took office, we found this matter in a very advanced stage. The charitable had already subscribed large amounts, the constitution of the two Committees had already been decided, and a sum of Government money, under the conditions already described, had been promised. The hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Hastings) spoke to us with full knowledge of the great need of additional supplies. I do not think that the House or the medical profession or the sufferers themselves would have thanked us if we had held up the scheme for six months in order to get a better scheme. Our immediate duty was clearly to subscribe this £100,000 and to get the machinery, which was almost ready for work, into action at the earliest possible moment. It is true, if we were starting this matter again, probably, like many others, we could suggest a better machine, but to scrap a machine which is practically in working order would, I think, be very wrong. A good deal of discussion has centred round the question of prices and the purchase of radium. The main business of the Trust is not the holding of money, but the purchase of Radium at the best possible prices. We should not have needed so many experts, and we should not have needed so many members of the Government, and the possibility of co-opting three experts if there was not a great deal of business of this kind to be done. The expenditure of public money will be one of the main responsibilities of the Trust, and they will explore all possible sources, and by the very fact that there will be one big buyer instead of a number of little buyers, they are far more likely to be able to obtain this substance
at reasonable prices. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) mentioned Australia, and he read out a long report with regard to possible sources of radium. May I remind him that the report comes from the Committee for Civil Research, who were themselves anxiously exploring every avenue, and with regard to the possibilities of radium in Australia, the Commonwealth Government are themselves considering and discussing the matter. I think, therefore, the House must exercise a little patience, and we shall be in a very much better position to judge with regard to prices when the Trust has been functioning for some little time.
I will try to deal with the great number of questions that have been asked. The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) asked a question again with regard to the supplies of radium in Australia. I will only tell him again that the matter is engaging the earnest attention of the Commonwealth Government. He wanted to know what were the prospects of more Australian supplies. I can only answer that my hon. Friend must wait until the Commonwealth Government can throw a little more light on the question. He and the hon. Member for Chester (Sir C. Cayzer) were very anxious that there should be a fair distribution of radium between hospital and hospital. The object of the Commission will be to secure not only a fair division, but a division which will ensure the most profitable and continuous use of radium. That is the primary purpose of the Commission that is to be set up, to secure; an equitable distribution, and the best distribution, of radium. This substance is capable of continuous use, and it can be used far more profitably if we can concentrate treatment in centres able to take a sufficient number of patients so as to secure continuous use of the remedy.
With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Reading, it is calculated that the money available—about £284,000—will purchase about 17 grammes of radium, and it is the opinion of the experts in the matter that we shall have as much as can be used at present, for our present difficulty is not so much the purchasing of radium as acquiring a sufficient number of persons, medical men and
assistants, who are capable of handling this substance. This matter is at present engaging the earnest attention of my right hon. Friend, and he hopes to be able to make some announcement on that question of training medical men and assistants. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Haycock), he is a little in error in regard to the cost of a single treatment by radium. This substance is almost eternal.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I made this statement, that the value of the amount of radium salts necessary for treatment of cancer of the breast was £1,500 and, if you divide that into 100,000, it means that you can treat just 66 cases of cancer of the breast at one time, and my authority is the director of the Radiological Research Department.

Miss LAWRENCE: I really think there is some mistake about that. The point is that the quantity of radium needed to treat one case may be £1,500, but you could go on with the same little pin head of substance treating case after case. That is, I think, the mistake into which the hon. Member has fallen. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) asked who will answer questions on behalf of the commission. Speaking off-hand and without consulting the authorities, the Lord President of the Council is the chairman of the Trust, and I should think in all probability he will be the person charged by Parliament with answering these questions. To conclude, this machinery may not be the machinery which many Members would have liked; but a machine has been set up, it is just ready to function, the great bulk of the money has been supplied, and in quite a short time this beneficent work may begin. I therefore ask the Committee not to insist upon alterations at present. When the Report has been made which has been asked for, and which might very properly be issued by the Minister of Health, the House will have a great deal more information before it and will be able, in the light of that information, to make really helpful suggestions.

Commander BELLAIRS: With regard to my question, we cannot get at the Lord President of the Council in this
House. Who is the representative of the Lord President of the Council in this House if we want to ask questions?

Miss LAWRENCE: I am not quite certain, but the House will be under no difficulty in obtaining information.

Sir D. NEWTON: The hon. Lady has omitted one important point, namely, the steps to be taken to get the League of Nations to move in the matter.

Miss LAWRENCE: That is a subject that is engaging the attention of the League already. I cannot at this moment say exactly what precise steps my right hon. Friend will take.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The title of this Bill is calculated to whet the appetite of hon. Members who are keen to detect some injustice in the incidence of rates, and critics might hail the opportunity of strife if this were in fact a drainage Bill. The intending combatants are, I am afraid, doomed to disappointment, because this is not really a drainage Bill at all. The title is somewhat misleading, because it is a totally uncontentious proposal dealing solely with a defect in the method of election of drainage authorities arising from the recent Local Government Act. All the Bill does is to secure that there shall be continuity in the election of drainage authorities. There is no other point in the Bill. If hon. Members will look at Subsection (1), they will see the words:
which requires any matter, other than the amount of any drainage rate.
But for those words, it would deal with the incidence of drainage rates. It does, in fact, deal with only another matter, namely, the qualification for electors and electees on drainage authorities. I should like to explain the origin of the Bill. It is an aftermath of the legislation of
the late Government. Drainage authorities have the option of rating either on annual value or on acreage, and they commonly use the rating on acreage, but, under the Drainage Act, 1861, as affected by the Act of 1918, they have an option. They may do their own annual valuation by themselves, or they may use the general poor rate valuation. The Local Government Act of this year abolished the assessments on agricultural land, and consequently something had to be done to provide another basis. Section 78 of that Act, therefore, substituted for rateable value, where the drainage authority was required to use the poor rate valuation, the assessment for Income Tax Schedule A. Following on that, the Ministry of Agriculture sent to all drainage authorities in the month of May a circular explaining the new conditions. There are about 370 drainage authorities. Some of them are based on extremely ancient Statutes. An hon. Member has just told me that he is on the board of a drainage authority, founded by King John; and many of the boards existed before Queen Elizabeth. Therefore, the replies from these numerous authorities brought to light very varying conditions. They showed a fact which was previously unknown to anybody, namely, that a difficulty had been overlooked in the passage of the Local Government Act. The qualification of electors has not been fully provided for, and therefore this Bill has become necessary to clean up the general process.
The qualification of electors is based as a rule on rateable value. There are a few cases, however, where it is not based on rateable value, but on the appearance of the ratepayer's name in the rate book. Those two cases are provided for by the two operative sub-sections of the Bill. There are, as far as is known to the Ministry, three boards in the latter category—the Ouse, the Welland and the Mole. Most of the electors in consequence of the Local Government Act would be disqualified from election. That is to say, the agricultural ratepayers would be disqualified. There would still be on the list of ratepayers persons qualified to elect who are not de-rated, but most of the electors would have disappeared by the disappearance of the rating list. Therefore Sub-section (1) provides that
where the qualification is a certain minimum rate the qualification shall be the assessment under Schedule A. Subsection (2) provides that where the qualification is appearance in the ratebook, qualification shall arise from the list kept by the drainage authorities of persons liable to rating. That is really a complete explanation of the Bill. There are, I think, no points of principle or of any real interest in the matter, because it is purely a question of machinery necessitated by the recent Act.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: I am very pleased that the Minister of Agriculture has made an apology that this is not a Drainage Bill, and has explained that it really makes remedies only in respect of rating and de-rating and the provision of assessment for Income Tax. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will see his way in the autumn to introduce a Drainage Bill which will absorb over 300 odd drainage boards into one great drainage scheme—a National Drainage Board. We have heard a great deal this afternoon about pictures and of £106,000 being spent upon them. If £106,000 were spent on drainage we should have some good pictures put before us in the shape of good crops of wheat, oats and various products, and supplies of livestock. Those are the pictures that we want to see in the country districts. We want to provide work for the people and to produce food for the nation. I do not wish to oppose this Bill, but I hope the Minister will promise that at no distant date he will bring in a real Drainage Bill in order to do some good.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I also am glad that this Bill does not constitute a proper Drainage Bill. There was a good deal of doubt about the matter when this Bill was first introduced in another place. Some people thought that this was, possibly, the only effort which the Government intended to make towards a solution of land drainage problems this Session. We hope very much from the indications which have been given that the Government really do mean to make up their minds to bring in legislation to deal with the proposals of the Royal Commission of 1927 dealing with land drainage. I understand that the Government are pledged to do something of that sort, and we in the country certainly look to
them to fulfil their pledges. As far as this Bill is concerned, it is, perhaps, a necessary amendment in regard to the Local Government Act which could not have been foreseen. But if the Government consider that they have fulfilled their pledges by introducing a Bill called "Land Drainage" they will certainly find that the country does not agree with them. We call upon the Minister of Agriculture to fulfil the earnest desire of the people suffering from waterlogged land in the country for these bad conditions to be put right. There is one point which I should like to ask the Minister to make quite clear. There are certain boards which are not elected on the ordinary rateable system. For instance, there is the case of Commissioners elected upon Courts of Sewers. There are, of course, varied cases of that kind. Does this Bill do anything to alter the system? Does it bring the whole system of the election of commissioners on Courts of Sewers into one category? I think the Minister made it clear that the Bill only dealt with certain specific cases which were altered by the Local Government Act. Does it alter any election to Courts of Sewers which are not dealt with in this Act?

Mr. N. BUXTON: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), the Bill has no occasion to deal with the method of election of Commissioners who do not require that there should be a qualification for electors. I need not tell my hon. Friends that the need of drainage is very present to our minds. You would rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, if I pursued that matter, and all I can say is, that it is having the most earnest consideration of the Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. N. Buxton.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE).

Standing Order No. 4.—(Precedence of business at different sittings).

Read and amended, by adding, at the end, the words:
(2) In the case of a session beginning between Easter and Christmas the following modifications of paragraph (1) of this Standing Order shall have effect:—

(a) Government business shall have precedence on as many Wednesdays immediately before Good Friday as the number of Wednesdays before Christmas on which it has not had precedence, and on as many Fridays immediately before Good Friday as the number of Fridays (reduced by three) on which it had not precedence before Christmas;
(b) After Easter Government business shall have precedence at all sittings except the sittings on the second, third, fourth, and fifth Fridays after Easter Day;
(c) Standing Order No. 6 shall come into force and have effect after Easter, instead of after Whitsuntide."—[Mr. Barnes.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Ordered,
That the Lords Message [17th July] relating to Consolidation Bills be now considered."—[Mr. Kennedy.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session."—[Mr. Kennedy.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Brigadier - General Sir George Cockerill, Mr. Fielden, Mr. F. W. Jowett, Mr. Holford Knight, Mr. George Oliver, and Mr. Shakespeare nominated members of the Committee:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Mr. Kennedy.]

GAS REGULATION ACT AND GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade
under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Alton and District Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 9th day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Andover Lighting and Power Company, which was presented on the 2nd day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Boston Gaslight and Coke Company, which was presented on the 2nd day of July and published, be approved, subject to the following modification:—

Clause 12, Sub-clause (3), omit the words 'and the non-dividend bearing capital created by section fifteen of this Order'"

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Town of Dudley Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 2nd day of July and published, be approved, subject to the following modification:—

Clause 50, page 22, at end of proviso (a.), delete 'and,' and insert 'or.'"

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Wateringbury Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 2nd day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Regulation Act. 1920, on the application of the Weymouth Consumers Gas Company, which was presented on the 2nd day of July and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Barnes.]

8.0 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I gave notice yesterday to the Minister of Labour that I
would raise the question of unemployment insurance last night or to-night. Since then, I have received a communication from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour suggesting as I did not raise the question last night I should postpone it until to-night or to-morrow night. It was my original intention to raise the question on Friday, but it will be admitted that it will be practically impossible to discuss unemployment insurance on Friday, inasmuch as two questions are likely to be raised by the Opposition, which will occupy the greater part of the time—the position that has arisen in regard to Egypt, and the Naval programme. I would have preferred that the Minister of Labour or the Parliamentary Secretary had been present to-night, but, in their absence, I feel that I must raise the question now, because there seems no likelihood of an opportunity being afforded on Friday. I have been taken by surprise by the early Adjournment. I understand that a question relating to the Home Office is to be raised, and I regret having to cut across the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway), but it is not my fault. I have not jumped anybody's post.
Unemployment insurance is one of the most important subjects if not the most important subject that confronts this House. My remarks to-night may be fairly lengthy, but I will try as far as is humanly possible to avoid being personal, or merely denunciatory of those who hold office in the Government. To-day, there are 1,250,000 people unemployed, according to the registers of the Exchanges, but that number is admitted to be inadequate. Without any exaggeration, we might say that at least 1,500,000 persons are unemployed, through no fault of their own. In addition to the official figures, anything from 250,000 to 500,000 people are unemployed, who for various reasons do not come on the register. We have to recognise that the number of persons unemployed is turned over at least four times in a given year; that in any given year probably 6,000,000 persons, male and female, are unemployed at some part of the year.
Therefore, when we are dealing with the problem of unemployment insurance, we are dealing with the greatest human problem that men and women are called
upon to solve. [Interruption.] That is a regrettable incident. It will be better if I do not express my views in regard to it. It is certainly not an incident to laugh at. The Minister of Labour is now present. I thank her for coming here, at inconvenience to herself. I would have given her notice that I intended to raise the matter to-night if I had had any idea that I was going to be called upon at this stage. Every hon. Member on these benches, and I am sure that the same remark applies to the Conservative Members, must have been struck during the General Election by the fact that from one end of the country to the other there was wholesale condemnation, from all types of people, of the methods by which the unemployed are dealt with at the Exchanges. No matter from what district the evidence came, we had first-class evidence of the fact that decent men and women were being unfairly dealt with at the Employment Exchanges. I am raising the matter to see how far the Government can meet the criticisms directed against the system by the unfortunate people who are unemployed.
I will not deal with the rates of benefit and the waiting period, because to do so would be out of order. Although I shall not raise the question of benefit, I think that one of the most urgent things that calls for attention, apart from administration, is the raising of the benefit to a human standard, so that no one can grumble about it. The Prime Minister announced to-day certain changes in Naval policy, and every man and woman desirous of world peace must have welcomed that statement as a step in the right direction. One was struck by the fact that a number of men, a small number because of the Government's plans, will lose their jobs. That statement conveyed to me an urgent reason why unemployment benefit ought to be recast in order that we may see that no man who loses his job shall be unduly penalised, and that he shall get decent rates of benefit. With regard to the waiting period, I think it ought to be abolished; but I will confine my remarks to the administration of the Employment Exchanges, the administration of unemployment benefit, and the question of "genuinely seeking work," and will offer to the Minister a certain guide which might be utilised to some advantage.
The question of not genuinely seeking work has been the subject of debate many times in this House. The policy was introduced by Dr. Macnamara in 1921, who was then the Minister of Labour, and was continued under successive Acts until 1924. Until that year it was solely confined to extended benefit. For standard benefit there was only one test, the man must either be offered a job or he was to get his benefit. That was the law until 1924. So far as extended benefit was concerned he had to prove that he was genuinely seeking work, but in 1924 the same test was applied to all classes of benefit, to extended and to standard benefit. I want to ask the Minister of Labour why she does not adhere to the method adopted in 1924. The Conservative Government, in regard to standard benefit, stated that the only test to apply was the test of a man being offered a job or getting his benefit. If that test can be applied to standard benefit, why cannot it be applied to extended benefit under the Act of 1927? I heard the Minister of Labour, before she was ruled out of order on a previous occasion, say that there must be some test of genuinely seeking work. What is to be the test? I only know of one, and that is the offer of a job. Any other test is unfair and wrong.
I have been told that the Umpire has defined genuinely seeking work. He says that it must not be interpreted in a general way, but on the individual case, and the state of mind of the applicant must be taken into account. Imagine the state of mind of a man looking for a job! A criminal in a Court of law has the charge against him definitely stated, no matter what it is, but the Umpire in this ruling admits that in the case of an unemployed person the charge is not defined. He is, therefore, in a worse position than a criminal in a Court of law, I went with a man on one occasion to the Employment Exchange, and this is what happened. He was asked why he did not go to certain places looking for work, and he admitted that he had not been because he had no clothes to go in. He was an auctioneer's help, and you need clothes for that job. He had no clothes; he was a disgrace. He was refused benefit because he had not got clothes good enough to go looking for work. Another person comes along; she is a pawnbroker's assistant, and extremely well
dressed. She is asked why she does not go to certain factories, and she says: They are not the kind of job for me; I am too well dressed. And she is turned down because she is too well dressed. These two cases occurred on the same day in the same court. One refused benefit because he had no clothes and the other because she was too well dressed.
I submit, also, that a decision has been given by the umpire, which is totally illegal. If it applied to rich people the umpire who gave the decision would have been dealt with and this House would have taken immediate action. It is a great thing to say, but I believe he is unfitted for his post. The Act of 1927 says that every person who applies for unemployment benefit must have his case reviewed at the end of six weeks. What does this umpire say? He says that whilst a man is entitled at the end of six weeks to claim a review of his case, yet, if the case has been turned down by a previous court, the decision cannot be altered. In effect he says that if a previous court of referees has decided that a man is not genuinely seeking work and his case is reviewed at the end of six weeks, it does not matter what the Act says, a previous court of referees having decided that the man is not genuinely seeking work determines the case. I maintain that that is an illegal decision. Six weeks ago the court may have said that the man was not genuinely seeking work. During the six weeks he may have made efforts to find work, but the umpire says: "No, we cannot have that. The previous court has decided the ease and has decided it for all time."
When the previous' Labour Government was in office, in its first weeks the Minister of Labour introduced a small and commendable Bill to deal with the gap period. Within a few weeks the Bill was passed and the gap period was abolished. That was a credit to the Minister and to the party to which he belonged. I do not ask for a big new Bill at this moment, because the preparation of such Bills calls for time and thought, but I do say to the Minister of Labour that at least a small Bill of one Clause might have been passed giving legal rights to the unemployed in the way that the 1927 Act desired. I come to another charge, and it relates to the appointment
of chairmen of courts of referees. The chairman in these courts is the only person who matters. There is a workmen's representative and an employers' representative, but in all cases the chairman has the final vote. Last night I listened to criticism of patronage in West Ham. I laughed, for I remembered how the Tory Government appointed Tory Chairmen of the Courts of Referees. Talk of patronage!
I go to a court in Glasgow, and what do I find? Deputies there in place of those who should be attending. The 1920 Act definitely states that the Chairman shall be appointed by the Minister. It does not say that there shall be deputy-chairmen. Just imagine a deputy being sent to a sheriff court in Scotland to do the work! Or imagine a deputy acting as judge in a county court! Yet these men in the courts of referees have deputies. It is said that there is some mysterious regulation which permits it, but I have not seen the regulation. I have here a letter from a man holding an important trade union post in Glasgow. He is a man of fair standing. He went to the court of referees and what did he find? Sitting in judgment was a boy of 23, a deputy. This boy's boss had better paying work to do, and so sent this deputy of 23 from the office to take his place. My friend won his case or else, he says, there would have been trouble. Just imagine handing over work to a boy of 23. I have not my correspondent's authority to mention names, but I am willing to hand them to the Minister of Labour privately. If there is a regulation permitting the appointment of these deputies let us know what it is. In the ordinary way a deputy is one who takes another's place in time of sickness or occasionally where other and more urgent business calls.
If it was right for the Conservatives to appoint chairmen of the Courts of Referees why does not the present Minister of Labour make appointments-Why has the Minister not appointed six more chairmen in Glasgow? The Tories appointed Tories and die-hard Tories too. If you search Glasgow you would have difficulty in beating those that have been appointed there. Why has the Minister not appointed six decent types of men? I do not even ask for Labour men; I might compromise and say that Liberals
would do. They could not be worse than the crowd that we have. But we have these Tories. Why has the Minister not appointed others, apart from politics, and from the business point of view? In 1927 the Courts of Referees dealt only with a few cases, but now they deal with almost every case of "not genuinely seeking work." Yet we have only the same number of chairmen. Why cannot more chairmen be appointed?
I come now to the court itself, and what I say might be taken as criticism of one or two of my friends. First of all there is the question of attendance at the court. I believe that when a man takes a job he ought to give reasonable attention to it, and that if he cannot do so he should resign. I find that in these courts—and this applies to both sides—the only person who is never absent is the chairman—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or his deputy!"]—and he gets 2½ guineas for each sitting. He is never absent, but the workmen's representative or the employers' representative is often absent. No person has a right to continue in that position unless he is going to attend reasonably—and I do not mean merely attendance at a sitting to hear one case. What I mean is attendance at all the cases. If they are not going to attend they ought to give way to persons who will attend. Regarding the constitution of the court itself there is an official who attends regularly and who presumably represents the Minister of Labour, in order to give a neutral view. Does he do so? I have listened to case after case and in every case where the Umpire's decision could be quoted against the applicant, this Ministry of Labour official produced it saying in effect, The Umpire has given his decision and you, being a lower court, must follow that decision." But when there was anything to say for the applicant it never was produced. In every case where an Umpire's decision was against the man it was definitely quoted.
I go further. I do not know what is the practice outside Glasgow, but there the court sits from about quarter past 10 to a quarter past 12 in the morning and there are usually 30 cases scheduled for the morning sitting. Two hours in which to deal with 30 cases, find out if the people concerned were genuinely seeking work, and examine their claims!
What happens? Time becomes more important than justice. In every court in the land there ought to be one cardinal principal and that ought to be justice and not time. If the first case, for instance, takes a half hour one finds people looking at their watches. It is interfering with the chairman getting back to his legal business, and 2½ guineas will not pay them, unless the cases are run through rapidly.
I come to the next point in my indictment. I may differ with some of my colleagues on this, but, because I hold this view, I ought to state it. I am a keen trade unionist, but I hope my keenness will never lead me to deprive people of their legal rights and even non-unionists or persons who have lost membership of a union—very often owing to irregularity of employment—ought to have their legal rights. We know the position of poor people who have suffered unemployment month in and month out, when every penny has been needed for the landlord. In my district not only are they not members of a trade union in many cases, but—what is more revolting to the women folk—in many cases they are not members of death insurance societies, and if they die they might not be buried properly. Even these people have their legal rights, and at the end of the hearing of the case, a man has the legal right to ask, if the case is decided against him, for leave to appeal to the Umpire. What happens at the present time? A person appears at the court of referees and at the end of the case the chairman announces that the court will send their decision in a day or two. The man has the decision sent to him two days later and his claim is refused. That man is deprived of his legal right to ask the court of referees for a right of appeal to the Umpire if they refuse him benefit.
In a court of law, if a Judge gives a decision against me I or my counsel can argue in favour of being granted the right to appeal, but this so-called court—it is misnamed a court—sends its decision two days later and the man never gets his legal right to argue in favour of an appeal if his claim has been die-allowed. It may, of course, be said that he ought to be in a trade union and the right would be given to him automatically. I am a Parliamentarian and a politician and not ashamed of it. I am
a believer in politics and in utilising this House of Commons, and I will continue to be so until I see an alternative. I say that the Statute having given a man this legal right, we ought to operate it and we ought to see that it is not made a mockery. In 99 per cent. of the cases turned down by the courts of referees the decisions are illegal because the persons concerned have never been given their legal right to argue in favour of an appeal to the Umpire.
I wish to deal with a further point. The Umpire has decided that where an applicant has signed a written statement, no matter what he or she may afterwards say, that written statement must be held binding. The right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour must have some cognisance of the ordinary courts of law. What have other courts decided on this matter? What have the eminent courts decided? I am no lawyer, but, as far as I can gather, a signed statement is important as evidence, but a signed statement by a prisoner in itself is not evidence but must be proved by other material facts. In these cases these poor fellows are treated worse than criminals. Once a statement is signed it does not matter what the person concerned proves afterwards. That signed statement is the only thing and that is directly contrary to the practice of every other court. I do not mind a signed statement being taken, but it should be taken in its proper place along with the other material facts. Imagine the case of a man or a woman appearing before the interviewing officer. These applicants are usually underfed; in many cases, especially among the women, they are nervous and highly-strung. In other cases they are almost illiterate. They are examined by a skilled officer. Their position is worse than that of the criminal because the criminal can demand that somebody else should be present. In this case there is nobody else, and the signed statement goes down. They sign anything, and then it is held as being absolutely binding, whereas in the case of a criminal it is only a material factor.
It may be said that I have been condemnatory and have done nothing but lash out—that is true—and I might be asked what I would do. Let me repeat what I said earlier, that so far as the
umpire's decision is concerned where it is directly contrary to the Act, namely, that he has not given the six weeks' period, there should be a proper new trial. It is in defiance of the spirit of the Act of 1927, and a short, one Clause amending Bill should be passed through. Now let me come to my alternative remedy. The question of "not genuinely seeking work" is the one big thing that is facing us. I see from answers to questions that the right hon. Lady intends to meet the criticism by a form of new procedure, which, as I understand it, is that the applicant goes before the interviewing officer, who, having a doubt about the case, remits it back to the insurance officer, but before it gets to the insurance officer two persons of local standing are to be allowed to examine the applicant and make a recommendation. Then the insurance officer may come in, and then the court of referees. The material change proposed is the introduction of two persons of local standing. [Interruption.] I am intensely in earnest on this question. I was not willing to take to-night for it, as I recognised that other people had a previous call, and if they had been here, they would have got it, but they were not.
I cannot see where the improvement comes in. Indeed, in some cases I think the proposal might make it worse instead of better because under the new régime, with two persons of local knowledge, if after they have seen the applicant they turn him dawn and he goes to the court of referees, that court will to that extent be prejudiced against the man. If the local folk have gone against him, to that extent his trial will have been considerably prejudged. If the court of referees is so good, if it is such a defensible body, why have this new procedure? In the City of Glasgow more or less everybody is local. We have a population of 1,250,000, and there is as good a chance of getting a man local in any Exchange in Partick as in Glasgow itself. What happens there? You have got the local men in the court of referees, in the employer and in the workman, and then you have got the lawyer. How is it that, two of them are going to be better at the start than at the finish? It must be because the lawyer is not present, but if that be the case, surely that is a reason for abolishing the lawyer. With regard to the local committees, we are told that
now the Minister's discretion is abolished the local committees are not the same as they used to be, but that may make matters worse. I would prefer the Minister's discretion to that of the court of referees, because on any decision given by the Minister I could challenge the Minister. The Minister was responsible, and I could come down to the House and denounce him or her, but now, when the discretion is with the court of referees, I cannot do that, so that if the local committees were to be condemned under the old régime, in my view, without the Minister's discretion, we are in a worse position than before.
I may be asked what I would do. I am accused of being condemnatory, but I have tried in some ways to be helpful. I recently spent some time in the company of the chief insurance official under an unemployment insurance society from 10 in the morning to one o clock in the afternoon, and he left with four or five foolscap pages of suggestions that I gave him. Let me take the question of "not genuinely seeking work." A committee is to be set up under the chairmanship of a King's Counsel; a representative of the Trades Union Congress is to be on it, a woman is to be on it, somebody representing the Court of Referees is to be on it, and I forget who the other one is, but it seems to me curious that when the Labour party appoint a committee they should load it against themselves. If it had been the Tories appointing the committee, they would have taken good care to see that it was well loaded in their favour, and if there is one criticism to make, I think it is against the constitution of that committee. There are teeming thousands of tremendously poor people, down and out, down at the very bottom, where even politics or trade unionism make no appeal, and they are unrepresented on this committee, but they have a view that ought to be examined and represented. There is a part of the Act of 1920, I think it is Section 35, in which it is laid down that the Minister has power by regulation to define what is "genuinely seeking work." It is a statutory obligation, and yet it has never been done.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: In 1924 the then Minister of Labour stated that "genuinely" meant "continuously."

Mr. BUCHANAN: That was an answer given to a question across the Floor of the House, but the Act says that the Minister shall define it by regulation, and that was not done. The present Minister of Labour ought to define it in the way that the Trade Union Congress and Labour Party have asked that it should be defined. She ought to define it as "a job or unemployment benefit." The Act says that the Minister may make regulations
for presenting the evidence to be required as to the fulfilment of the conditions and the absence of the disqualifications for receiving or continuing to receive unemployment benefit.
What is to hinder her doing it? It does not need a committee. The Trade Union Congress have inquired into it for years, and have come to a solution. It could be done by administration, and the Minister could do it to-morrow. At the present time, the interviewing officer is absolutely the key man. He says what is to happen to the human material afterwards. At present, if there is a doubt, the interviewing officer must refer to the insurance officer, whose place is now taken by the local committee. Why cannot the instructions be altered so that they should provide that "unless the interviewing officer is certain that a person should receive benefit"—"certain" instead of "doubtful." Why should a man have to go through all this hell because somebody has a doubt? The Procurator Fiscal in Scotland is the person who orders a prosecution for theft, and the theory is that no prosecution should be taken unless there is a certainty that a case can be established. Why should not that apply to the unemployed?
9.0 p.m.
It is said that there might be some bad people get unemployment benefit if this were the case, and that somebody not genuinely seeking work might get benefit. My criticism is that it is just that type of person who can get benefit. You might pass Acts of Parliament from now till Doomsday, and you could not stop that. You will never catch the cute man, and the "fly" man. They do not go to the Employment Exchanges with a book in their pocket containing a list of addresses. They learn them off by heart, generally on Sundays. The ordinary, dull, honest man goes to the Employment
Exchange, and when he is asked if he has applied to such and such a place for work, says, "No, I knew it was no good," and he is turned down. During the election, I met a man at Dumbarton who had walked 14 miles to get a job as a moulder, and when he got to the place he found that no moulders were wanted. The tragedy of it was that in three seconds on the telephone the Employment Exchange could have found out if any moulders were wanted. Instead of doing that, they inflicted on this poor devil a tramp of 14 miles.
It is sometimes said that I am very angry with officials, I do sometimes think, when I look at the officials, that I should like them to change places with the applicants, so that they could have a dose of their own medicine. I say that a man ought to get unemployment benefit until the highest court has decided that he shall not get benefit. It is said that there is no punishment, because if the court decides in favour of the man he will get his back pay. Are you sure there is no punishment I He has to live all this time, and to do so he has to borrow money and gets into the clutches of moneylenders, from which he never extricates himself. It is not fair to inflict suffering on him and I say that full payment ought to be made until the court gives its decision.
There are other points which I could raise, but I have given my main point. I say, first of all that the appointments of chairmen ought to be reviewed from one end of the country to the other, and that every chairman who shows by his decisions that he is incapable of acting as chairman ought to be asked to go. Chairmen ought to be appointed who understand the work, and the appointments ought not to be confined to lawyers. Next, under the Act of 1920 the Minister ought to define what is genuinely seeking work and define it as "a job—or benefit." Thirdly, the Minister ought to issue this instruction to every one of the interviewing officers regarding their decisions as to whether an applicant is not genuinely seeking work, "In doubt, give benefit; only in cases of certainty, give no benefit." I am not asking for an increase of benefit. I am not asking for miracles. I am looked upon as holding extreme views: I do not deny it and I do not accept it. I may hold them. I
fought my election on my own. I refused to issue the manifesto of the Labour party, because it committed me to too much. I was not prepared to ask even my Government for what the Labour party manifesto stated. I have been too long in this House for that. All I ask from my Government is this: Decent human treatment for the unemployed, the widow, the old and the young. I do not ask for miracles. I do not ask them to solve the whole of the unemployment problem, because it is no good asking of human beings more than they can do. I have only asked for these small points, and I certainly thought that when I went back to my native area, back to the folk among whom I was born and where my relatives still live, I should at least have been able to say that this "genuinely seeking work" nightmare had been either removed or so modified that nobody would ever again be troubled with it.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I am sure the House has listened with very great interest to the speech we have just heard. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has already informed the House that on Saturday last I took the rather exceptional course of sending up to Glasgow one of the principal officers of my Department to go over the whole ground with the hon. Member on the spot. His report is now before me, and is receiving my very careful consideration. I do not intend to detain the House long to-night—because I know there are other hon. Members waiting to discuss other points—beyond saying that the points raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals have been all very carefully considered by me in connection with different complaints which have been brought in the past. I have already stated in reply to questions that I have taken two steps to deal particularly with the question of "not genuinely seeking work." The first is the appointment of an intervening body between the employment exchange and the insurance officer, because I have quite definitely come to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence on which the insurance officer in London can come to a just decision. These local assessors will have the local knowledge and their procedure will be much more informal—that is the real purpose of
the change—than the more formal court of referees; and I hope that when an applicant goes before them the conversation will be of such an informal and friendly character that very few of these cases need go any further, that they can be settled on the spot, and settled, I frankly hope, in favour of the applicant.
The question whether a person is not genuinely seeking work is one of the most difficult questions to determine. I hold that it cannot be determined without local knowledge of the conditions of trade or industry in the district where you expect the applicant to get work. Although I regret to hear that the hon. Member for Gorbals does not agree with this procedure, I hope sincerely that this experiment will be successful. If it is not successful, I shall come to the House for further powers in order to find some other way of dealing with this problem. But this is a statutory condition, and must be enforced until such time as we can frame a formula which will be a sufficient guarantee for the right use of the fund and will be a better substitute for the words which are at present in the Act.
With regard to the question of deputy chairman, I must confess that I cannot understand the hon. Member's suggestion. It is perfectly clear that this practice of appointing deputy chairmen has been in force ever since 1911, but I have made a slight alteration because of the criticism which has been raised regarding the way in which chairmen exercise their powers to appoint deputies. I have said that where deputy chairmen are appointed they are to be appointed by precisely the same procedure as the chairman is appointed—they are to receive my personal appointment instead of being appointed by the chairman. The appointment of deputies is quite clearly necessary, because we cannot have cases held up by the illness or the temporary absence of chairmen on their own business.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Lady show us where statutory power is given to appoint these deputy chairmen? There is power to appoint deputy umpires, but I cannot find any statutory power to appoint deputy chairmen.

Miss BONDFIELD: I am not referring to any statutory power. I am referring to a practice which has been in existence ever since we have had unemployment insurance. The chairman has been asked to appoint deputies; that has been the practice.

Mr. MACLEAN: As the Act provides only for chairmen and makes the decision of a court of referees as given by the chairman a legal decision, how can the decisions of deputy-chairmen, who are not mentioned in the Act, have legal force?

Miss BONDFIELD: Normally speaking, there is no inferior status in regard to the deputy-chairman, who has to have the same qualifications as the chairman, and, therefore, it seems to me that we are fighting a shadow. The chairman and the deputy-chairman are equally responsible, and it is not a fact that the chairman is entitled to call in anybody he likes. The deputy-chairman has been appointed hitherto on the nomination of the chairman, but in future he will be directly nominated by the Minister. With regard to what has been said about the way the assessors carry out their duty, I agree that that is a very serious matter. I am aware that the insured person has a right to postpone his case, but we all know how inconvenient it is for a person to do that. This is one of those matters upon which I would like the support of local opinion in pressing the rights of the insured persons upon the assessors. I know I have power to strike their names off the list and put others on.
With regard to insurance officers, a great many statements have been made about their actions. I do not want to make any excuse whatever for those cases to which quite obviously insufficient consideration has been given, but I would like to point out that 94 per cent. of the applications are admitted to benefit. I am paying much attention to this matter and devoting a great deal of time to individual cases in order to find out how they are actually being treated. I do not think it is fair to make a general sweeping statement of uniform incivility because I can show that the case is quite the contrary. In order to meet this difficulty, there is a special instruction as follows:
Interviewing officers should not forget the need of courtesy and consideration in dealing with claimants. The Act places
upon the claimant the onus of showing that he is genuinely seeking work but unable to obtain suitable employment. When he is required to discharge this onus, patience and fairness are called for in a special degree. Care should also be taken to see that claimants who are nervous or have difficulty in expressing themselves are placed at no avoidable disadvantage.
The Courts of Referees were set up in 1911. We have a subsequent Act of Parliament which is broad in its application, but these courts have had to go on under Regulations that have been superimposed upon other Regulations, and it is time there was an inquiry into the whole procedure. It is my intention to appoint a Committee to deal with this question, and I hope I shall be able to announce the names to-morrow. I hope the labours of the Committee I am going to appoint will be finished before the House reassembles in the autumn. With regard to the definition of "not genuinely seeking work," the interpretation of this condition is laid down in the umpire's decisions. These matters have now been taken out of the Department and they had been placed under the judicial authority of the courts of appeal and the Umpire. I should be very sorry indeed to bring them back again to be decided at the discretion of the Ministry, because when that system was in operation there was a good deal more grumbling than anything we have heard to-night. I would like to emphasise the point in regard to defining the phrase "not genuinely seek work" by the following extracts from the umpire's decisions:
Parliament cannot have meant that a genuine worker … must spend his time looking for work which he has not the remotest chance of finding.
Personal applications may be most useful in some industries, but in others they are a waste of time and futile as a test of the genuineness of search for work.
Those two extracts together with several others of the Umpire's decisions make it perfectly clear that these cases have to be taken on their merits, and any attempt to stereotype decisions is something to which an end should be put. Very often decisions are given because they appear to be similar to other cases and the benefit is disallowed.

M. TROTSKY.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I apologise for not being in my place when the Adjournment
Motion was moved, but, in view of the Debate which has taken place and the speech which has been delivered by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I do not regret that Debate. I think we all realise the extraordinary personal knowledge which the hon. Member for Gorbals possesses upon the subject with which he has dealt, and I am sure we ail appreciate the valuable contributions he has made to our Debates. I gave notice a week ago that I would draw attention on the first available opportunity to the decision of the Government to refuse M. Trotsky permission to enter this country. I raised this question with very great reluctance. It is not a pleasant task for anyone speaking from the Government Benches to be critical in regard to a decision which has been arrived at by the Government, but I feel that such a great principle and issue is at stake in this matter that I should not be acting conscientiously if I remain silent upon this subject.
I do not think it is necessary for me to point out that I am not approaching this matter primarily from the point of view of sympathy with M. Trotsky. Those hon. Members who know my attitude and record know that so far as political methods are concerned there are very few Members of this House whose political method is more different from that of M. Trotsky. Any change which is secured by force and violence must be of a temporary character and can have no long standing results. So far as political methods are concerned I am not pleading for M. Trotsky because of the views which he has expressed. I am raising this question rather because of the illustration it is of the changed attitude which has been adopted towards the right of asylum as compared with the attitude which existed in this country before the War. Before the War it was the recognised policy in this country—not only of one party, but of all parties—that we should provide an asylum to those who were driven from other countries for political reasons. As long ago as 1858 Lord Campbell, who was then Lord Chief Justice, referred to this recognised right of asylum as
a glory which, I hope, will ever belong to this country.
He went on to define it in these words:
Foreigners are at liberty to come to this country and to leave at their own will and pleasure, and they cannot be disturbed by the Government of this country so long as they obey our laws. They are under the same law as native-born subjects, and if they violate them they are liable to be prosecuted and punished in the same way as native-born subjects.
I think I am right in saying that it was in the early years of this century that that recognised right of asylum was seriously challenged in this country. In 1905 there was a Debate in this House, but even on that occasion not only the Liberty party, which was then in the minority, the Labour party, which was in a smaller minority, but the leaders of the Conservative party, advocated the principle which I am applying to the case of M. Trotsky to-night. Lord Balfour, for example, speaking in that Debate, said:
There was no difference of opinion in the House as to the desirability of admitting aliens into this country who were genuinely driven out of their own country on the ground of their being accused of political crime or involved in political agitation.
In reading those Debates I can recollect one of those rare speeches which have made almost historic certain Debates in this House, delivered by the right hon. Gentleman who still represents the University of Oxford (Lord H. Cecil) in which he asserted, in very moving language the same principle which was expressed by Lord Balfour in the quotation to which I have referred. If that has been the general conception of the right of asylum in this country, I wish to draw attention to the new conception which is expressed in the answer of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to the question which a number of Members of the House, including myself, put to him last week. In answer to our question he said:
In regard to what is called 'the right of asylum,' this country has the right to grant asylum to any person whom it thinks fit to admit as a political refugee. On the other hand, no alien has the right to claim admission to this country if it would be contrary to the interests of this country to receive him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1929; col. 603, Vol. 230.]
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I imagined that that sentiment would be cheered on the Conservative benches, because it is excellent, modern Conservative doctrine. It is not the Conservative doctrine of the great Conservative leaders
in this House and in the country prior to the War. The minds of all of us have become demoralised by the hatreds and antagonism which arose out of the War. That demoralisation has taken place most seriously in the minds of those who were once led so nobly on the subject by Lord Balfour and by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford and who are now falling such a long way behind the ideal on this subject which they held. But if it is good modern Conservative doctrine, may I suggest that it is very dangerous Labour doctrine, because if you examine that statement it really means that the right of asylum is no longer a general right of political refugees. It has become the exceptional right of the Government to admit them when the Government think fit. Does the right hon. Gentleman apply that same doctrine to other rights? Does he apply it to the right of free speech? Have the citizens of this country the right to speak freely, or have they only the right to speak freely when they speak what is convenient to the Government? Have the people of this country the right to freedom of meeting, or have they that right only when it is convenient to the Government of the country that they should meet? Have the people of this country the right to the freedom of association, or have they that right only when it is convenient to the Government that they should associate? Have the people of this country the right to trial by jury or have they that right only when it is convenient to the Government that they should be tried by jury? In the doctrine of the right of asylum which is expressed in the answer of the right hon. Gentleman I suggest that the right of asylum exists, not as a general rule to political refugees, but only when it is convenient to the Government of this country.
From those general principles, I turn to the case of M. Trotsky. I want to suggest that there is not the least doubt that M. Trotsky can fulfil the definition which was laid down by Lord Balfour, and which I have already read. There is no doubt that he has been genuinely driven out of his own country, on the ground of his being accused of political crime or involved in political agitation. There he was, whatever our views may be of him, one of the most distinguished statesmen in Europe. There he was, a great
figure who has had an extraordinary personal influence upon European affairs. By the Government of his own land he is first exiled and then deported from his country. He is at the present moment in Turkey. He is suffering from chronic malaria. Turkey is a malarial country. He requires expert medical advice and treatment which he cannot secure there. He asks our Labour Government for permission to enter this country for that medical advice and treatment. He is prepared to lay down the strictest limitation as to his activities. He is prepared to live where the Government may desire him to live. He is prepared to accept any conditions of this kind which the Government will lay down. He is prepared to give an undertaking that he will remain in this country only for one month for the medical advice and treatment which he desires. When M. Trotsky, with that experience of his and with that request which he makes, is refused admission to this country by our Government, we can only regret that we have gone so far away from the principle of the right of asylum which used to apply to such cases.
May I just examine for a moment or two the case which is made against the admission of M. Trotsky in the answer given by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs? He states that, if M. Trotsky were to come here, persons of mischievous intention would unquestionably seek to exploit his presence for their own ends, and if, in consequence, he became a source of great embarrassment, the Government would have no certainty of being able to secure his departure. I very much hope that, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, he will indicate to us who are these people of mischievous intentions whom he has in mind. Does he mean the Communist party of this country? If he does, he knows how utterly feeble, how utterly futile, how utterly uninfluential the Communist party is. But, in addition to that, I think he will recognise that M. Trotsky has been expelled from the Communist party, and if it be such people that he has in mind when he speaks of mischievous intentions, he will know that, if M. Trotsky came to this country, the discipline of the Communist party is so stern that no member of that party
would dare to have any communication with him because M. Trotsky has been expelled from it. But there is a second alternative as to people of mischievous intent. That expression may refer, not to the Communists, who are not in this House, but to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite benches. I suggest to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs that our Government should pay no more attention to the prejudices of this small-minded panic-stricken attitude of hon. Members on the opposite benches than they should pay to the Communist party. We have gone through a General Election, in which the party on these benches, and the party on the opposite benches which takes a similar view to that which I have been expressing to-night, have overwhelmed the Conservative party by the votes they have received in the country. I suggest that, when a great issue like this is at stake, it is our duty to make it clear that the decision of the electorate should determine our policy, and if the intentions of these people be mischievous, to let them carry out their intentions, because they can be safely ignored by the Government of this country.
As to the second point, regarding the embarrassment that might be caused if M. Trotsky at the end of the period declined to depart, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman of one interesting precedent which I know will appeal to him? That precedent is the case of Karl Marx. Karl Marx was a political refugee. He was denationalised; he had no country to which he could return. There was some opposition to his entrance into and his remaining in this country, but the Government of that time was big enough to take the view that this country should serve as a refuge to those who had been politically excluded from other countries. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not regret the fact that Karl Marx was welcomed to this country and for many years lived here in our midst.
I conclude with an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, I can understand that during the last few days there may have been a great desire that no step should be taken which might prevent events which are now likely, happily, to occur; but under present conditions I would ask
the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. I ask him to remember the traditions of this country when we admitted Kossuth, Victor Hugo, Garibaldi, Karl Marx, Mazzini, and others. At that time there were small voices terrified by fear which raised opposition to their entry, but now we all recognise that our country is the greater because they have been in our midst. We all recognise that our country is bigger and more dignified in the mind of the world because of the attitude which we then assumed; and I am perfectly certain that, if our Government will reconsider its decision, it will go forth to the world big and dignified, because it will be recognised that in our power we do not fear the entry into our country of one man who has been hounded out of his own country for the political views which he held.

Mr. MANDER: I rise to say a few words in reference to the case which has been raised by the hon. Member opposite. I do so without any personal interest in the individual concerned, who may be most undesirable, and certainly without any interest whatever in his views. But I think that a very great principle is at stake, because for hundreds of years in this country we have been willing—and I think it has been a wise policy—to allow political refugees who for that reason have been driven from their own countries to come here, and it has been on many occasions to our very great advantage. I venture to think that no reason has yet been shown by the right hon. Gentleman for not acting in the same way on this occasion. I know he says that it might possibly cause the Government a great deal of inconvenience if M. Trotsky were to come; but, surely, that is not the issue at all. There has always been a risk of inconvenience in political refugees coming here, and it seems to me that it is not taking a very high line to say that, because we are going to be put to some trouble, therefore we are going to give up this old tradition. When the Huguenots came over here there were probably some very troublesome and nasty customers among them, who made things very difficult for the people in charge of affairs in this country at that time, but I do not think that anyone would desire for a moment to go back on that great act of policy,
which has enriched enormously the people and the commerce of this country.
With regard to this particular case, the right hon. Gentleman has said that if M. Trotsky were once to come here there would be great difficulty in ever getting him to go away, but a very good precedent has been set by the late Home Secretary. There was a Rumanian Prince, Prince Carol, who came here and incurred the displeasure of the late Government, and he was in a very summary way, probably rightly, ordered to leave this country. I cannot see why the present Home Secretary, who in these matters seems to be modelling himself on his predecessor, could not act in the same way if M. Trotsky were to give trouble in this country. In view of the fact that he has given definite pledges, for what they may be worth, of good behaviour, I venture to think that it is a timid and really unworthy policy to take up the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up. It is an attitude which seems to me to be in no way dissimilar to that which his predecessor would have adopted if he had been placed in the same position. I cannot see in this, and I am sorry to say in some other matters too, any very great difference between the attitude of the present and that of the late Government.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter from the point of view, not of the difficulties inherent in this case but of the great historical tradition for which this country has been known for hundreds of years all over the world. Up to the time of the War it was part of our national tradition and custom but in the years since the War there has been a great setback, and we have receded in many other respects. It was reasonable to hope that when a Government came into power with the programme, policy and pledges associated with the Labour party, they would not, when faced with a problem of this kind, immediately give way to the safety first principle, which is certainly what has taken place here. I hope if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government finally feel that they cannot see their way to allow M. Trotsky to come into this country, it will be for some reasons very much better and more cogent than anything we have had laid before us yet.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope the House will remember that we are, in a sense, not merely representatives of our constituencies for the moment but custodians of the traditions of this House, which go back for many hundreds of years. It is so easy to take a line which may be popular on such a question as this. It is so easy to say, "We do not like Trotsky. We do not want him here." That has been said over and over again, not only by people in this House but by large parties in the country, about all sorts of persons whether they came here or not. There was a time, I have no doubt, for instance, when the large majority of the House, and indeed the large majority of the country, disliked the late Mr. Keir Hardie so much that they would gladly have seen him sent to prison, not for any crime, but because they disliked him. That may have been the overwhelming feeling in the House and in the country but it was ruled out as quite impossible, because in this country we do not imprison people because we do not like them. We never have done and I hope we shall not begin to do so. That is the old tradition and, in spite of temporary brainwaves, we stick by the old traditions. You have here an old tradition which is almost peculiar to England. Of course, in the past Switzerland to a large extent shared with us the honour of being a country where refugees could go, knowing they were safe. Switzerland and England have always been the homes of liberty, the land of the mountains and the land of the sea, and here we are carried away by a momentary feeling of intense personal hostility to M. Trotsky to support Government action which is directly contrary to the whole of these traditions that we have supported.
Think for a moment what would have been our position if, in very similar circumstances, 100 years ago this country had refused permission to Danton, when he was outlawed by the Triumvirate, to come to England. If that had happened, history would be denouncing England and English policy at that time as being thoroughly un-English. I cannot help thinking that we are now dealing with M. Trotsky, a man in a position very similar to that of Danton, on very much the same lines and that history hereafter will judge us just as we should have judged Pitt's administration 130 years
ago if they had refused permission to a man fleeing from the Terror in France to take refuge in this country. It is not a question of persons. It is a question of our historical tradition. "Safety first" is an easy way out. The late Government lost the election because the people of this country instinctively know that safety first is not the right motto for Englishmen. We have always to put one thing before safety, and that is honour. "Honour first" is a much better motto, and our honour is directly involved in this. If it goes out to the world finally that the Labour Government refuses to allow M. Trotsky to come here, and follows the example set, I am afraid, in Germany recently, then immediately we shall lose, in the eyes of all the other nations of Europe and America, some part of the glamour that attaches to the English name. I hope, particularly now when the negotiations with the Soviet Government, Trotsky's enemies, are going so well, we shall take this opportunity to change our mind towards the admission of this refugee and allow him to come here, where he may be a nuisance but where, in any case, we are capable of looking after our own nuisances in our own country. The most admirable speech that we had from the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) ought to auger well for the result of this debate. We do not want to import into this question the slightest bitterness or party feeling. This is not a question of party. It is a question of English tradition and sound principle. That was the keynote of the speech of the Secretary of the Independent Labour Party. I am glad he spoke here to-night for the Independent Labour Party and I hope when we read our papers to-morrow we shall find that he also spoke for the Labour party as a whole.

Mr. THURTLE: I agree with my right hon. Friend that we do not want to import any bitterness or party feeling into this discussion, but we want to import a little common-sense. I should like him, and those who have spoken in this discussion, to ask themselves whether this right of asylum that they have spoken of is an absolute, unqualified right admitting of no exception whatsoever. I have never understood it in that sense. I am sorry indeed to differ from my good friend, whom I have recognised already as being
a most excellent type of Radical, but I cannot share with him the view that in present circumstances we ought to admit M. Trotsky into this country. My right hon. Friend has talked about honour and safety first. Suppose we tried to draw a parallel of what might happen in this country. I am a strong believer in the bottom dog. I always like to defend him and to make sacrifices for him, and if a man came to my house to-night who was a fugitive from justice, it is quite likely that I should give him shelter. Certainly if he were a fugitive from tyranny I would give him shelter and protection. But if I knew that that selfsame man had already proclaimed his bitter antipathy and hatred towards me and had declared that he would seize every possible opportunity of doing me harm, it would alter my attitude towards him very much indeed. That is the real issue in the case of M. Trotsky. We have had cited to us the cases of Mazzini, Garibaldi, Kossuth, and others. All these men who came to this country to seek our protection and refuge were people who admired and loved British institutions.
I submit that M. Trotsky is not in that class at all. As far as I know M. Trotsky's views—and I am speaking now with particular reference to the Labour Government—he despises the Labour Government. He hates the Labour Government. He would not scruple by means fair or foul to destroy the Labour Government, because it is part of M. Trotsky's philosophy that the end justifies the means. His pledged word would count as dust in the balance—it is the ordinary Bolshevist theory—if when he got over here he saw a suitable opportunity of doing harm to or destroying the Labour Government I am quite certain that although my hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway), said he might come here and make pledges and that he would not do us any harm, if he got over here and the capitalist newspapers—the "Daily Express," or the "Daily Mail" or any other of those papers—saw a suitable opportunity of getting in an effective blow against the Labour Government, they would not scruple to use M. Trotsky for that purpose.
Finally, I want to put this point. In spite of my feeling that M. Trotsky has no title to come here and would seek to
use his powers to do us harm, I would overlook all that if M. Trotsky really were in the position of being some desperate-hunted fugitive who had no place in which to lay his head. But M. Trotsky is in no such desperate condition. I understand that he is living in Turkey in comfortable conditions in a very comfortable hotel, and is not in any desperate plight at all. As far as the plea of the hon. Member for East Leyton is concerned, that M. Trotsky is in acute need of special medical attention which he can only get in this country, I would submit that if he has the money which would enable him to travel to this country and to stay in this country for at least a month for the purpose of receiving that medical attention, he has the necessary money in order to enable him to invite an expert medical man to go from this country to Turkey and give him the necessary treatment there. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will stand firmly to their guns on this matter.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. SANDERS: I listened with great attention and a good deal of admiration to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway). I, like him, or rather, I would say, like the school to which we both belong, have been fed upon lofty and high principles which we attempt, I believe, as far as we possibly can, to live up to and advocate, but both of us, I am certain, have from time to time to recognise that these lofty and admirable principles have to be modified to meet special circumstances. At least I have learnt this, and I want to put before the House one or two reasons why I associate myself with the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). I am certain that if anyone were to stand up and advocate at the present moment that the German Emperor, who is not allowed to go back to Germany, should be allowed to come to England, there are many people who agree on this side with the abstract principle splendidly enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton who would vote against the admission of the German Emperor into this country for very sound and practical reasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am not going to argue why. It is perfectly obvious why. There is another point to which I want to refer. M. Trotsky
is not the only man who has been exiled from Russia. Over Europe there are millions of men and women holding the same faith as my hon. Friend and myself, who are not allowed to go back to Russia, but they are not allowed to come to this country either. Why? Because if they tried to come in large numbers—I believe that some hon. Members are smiling because I said "millions." There are millions of Russians who are exiled.

Mr. BROCKWAY: The phrase used was that there are millions of Russians who hold the views of my hon. Friend and myself.

Mr. SANDERS: I ought to say many of these millions hold the views of my hon. Friend and myself. They are not allowed to come to this country, because they cannot give the necessary economic guarantee that they would not fall upon our charity and assistance. I have never heard of a Member of this House getting up and asking that these poor people, many of them peasants and mechanics, should be given right of asylum, for the very reason that since the War we have not been able to afford to give right of asylum to these people on account of our unemployment problem. That is perfectly true. It is not a laughing matter. There are many of us who would like to advocate it. A part of the work of the International Labour Office is to try to find asylum for these poor people. We dare not approach England for the purpose of finding asylum because we know that the working people in England, through their trade unions, would say that we ought not to admit these poor working people into England while we have so many of our own unemployed. I am a democrat, and what is good for the unemployed Russian peasant is good enough for M. Trotsky. I do not believe that there is any danger that M. Trotsky would do anything to revive—"revive" is hardly the word—or help build up the Communist movement in this country.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton that it is a negligible quantity in English politics. We have been very fortunate; we have had just sufficient of the Communist movement in this country to vaccinate ourselves against the real Trotskyism. I do not believe
that M. Trotsky would be able to form a party in this country. There are no Trotskyites in the Communist party in this country, and for the very good reason that the Communist party here is entirely dependent upon Moscow. It dare not have a Trotsky element in it, otherwise the necessary sinews of war would be cut off immediately. I said that it was entirely dependent upon Moscow. That is not quite correct. In my Division, the Communist movement in its most dangerous element is partly subsidised by the local Conservative Association.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I should like to invite the hon. Member to substantiate that statement.

Mr. SANDERS: I can elaborate it, quite easily.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Substantiate it.

Mr. SANDERS: I do not know whether I shall be in order in going into it, but I will do so, with the permission of the House. We have in Battersea a branch of a notorious Communist organisation, called the National Unemployed Workers' Association. It is notoriously Communist. Everybody knows that it is part of the Communist organisation. It is a special organisation for what right hon. and hon. Members opposite fear most—they fear it most unnecessarily, but they do fear it—propaganda amongst children. A part of their propaganda is to collect funds for the purpose of taking children out to the country and, side by side with giving them entertainment, providing them with the necessary Communist views. The poster for that particular activity can be found posted outside the offices of the local Conservative Association. If hon. Members would look at the subscription list in support of this Communist activity they would find the names of the late Conservative candidate for North Battersea, and the late Member of Parliament for South Battersea. They will find that these gentlemen say openly that, in organising this business as members of the National Unemployed Workers Council, they are under the patronage of a certain Noble Lord who formerly represented South Battersea.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It would appear
to an impartial listener to his observations that he bases his allegation against the Conservative party on the fact that one or two people who are anxious to help the unemployed have been so unfortunate as to do so through the local Labour party organisation. It seems to me that when the hon. Member reads his speech to-morrow morning he will appreciate that the evidence he has put forward is such as will not be given credence by most people in this country.

Mr. SANDERS: Unfortunately, I have been dragged away from the main current of my argument. I would add that this particular activity is deliberately organised by the National Unemployed Workers' Council in order to keep money from being given to a similar undertaking, which is non-party, non-religious, open to all the people of Battersea, and run by a Battersea council of Conservatives, Liberals and Labour people. I did not refer to the Conservative party as a whole: I said that the Conservative party in my district support this Communist activity by putting the bills relating to its activities outside the offices of the Conservative Association. I will now come back to my main point. I do not think that the Government will be embarrassed by the Communist or anti-Communist activities of M. Trotsky if he is allowed to come to this country, but I do think that they would be embarrassed in another way.
May I recall to the House a very lamentable tragedy that took place in Switzerland, a year or two ago. Unfortunately, owing to the War, there is a spirit of revenge, barbaric and cruel revenge, to be found in many parts of Europe, and probably existing in this country, against the Bolshevist revolutionists. It is hardly to be wondered at, although it is to be deplored. Everybody who has followed international politics will remember that international complications arose between Switzerland and Russia, because one of the Russian envoys to a conference in Lausanne was murdered by a man who thought, and probably it was true, this his family had been cruelly injured and barbarously treated by the Bolshevists.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is an argument against having a Russian Minister here.

Mr. SANDERS: Possibly, but the only thing to be said in that regard is that, probably, the Russian Minister will be able to protect himself out of Russian funds. If we have M. Trotsky in this country, I believe that the British taxpayer will be compelled to pay heavily in order to protect him, if he is to be safe from the fate of the gentleman who died at Lausanne. It would be a most deplorable thing from our point of view if by allowing M. Trotsky to come into this country a tragedy similar to that which happened in Switzerland took place, apart altogether from the fact that we have no right to ask the British taxpayers to provide guards for a man who might be the victim of private enemies. For the reasons I have stated, I associate myself most heartily with the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), and I trust that the Home Secretary will decide not to modify his decision with regard to this application.

Mr. HARRIS: I had not intended to intervene in this discussion but for the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch. I remember the hon. Member siting on this side of the House, in the corner seat above the Gangway, and making very remarkable speeches championing the opening of relations with Russia. No one was more indignant than the hon. Member at the withdrawal of the Russian Ambassador from this country, and I remember his bitter resentment at the alleged unfairness in the treatment of Arcos. There was no reference then to the hostility of the Russian Government, and its opposition to our institutions and our Constitution. The present Government of Russia has shown the same hatred as M. Trotsky; indeed, I understand that M. Trotsky is more ready to modify his views. One of the reasons why he was banished from his country was that he was prepared to adjust Soviet ideals to the principle of capitalism and a modified freedom. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I do not pretend to be an admirer of the views of M. Trotsky, but I object to the hon. Member for Shoreditch after the many speeches he has made in this House—

Mr. THURTLE: May I submit to the hon. Member that in the case of the representative of the Russian Government we were giving a very considerable quid
pro quo, because we were establishing trade and diplomatic relations with Russia and the Russian people. In the case of M. Trotsky, as far as I can see we are getting no quid pro quo whatever.

Mr. HARRIS: The hon. Member is prepared to swallow his principles apparently. When a man is out of power, driven out of his country, he has no use for him; but if a Government standing for views which are hateful and distasteful to him are prepared to do business with this country he is prepared to swallow his principles. That is not the Liberal way. Liberals dislike the views of M. Trotsky just as much as they dislike the views of the present Russian Government. It has always been one of the great principles of this country that a man political refugee could be sure of a home in England if he conformed to the laws of this country. For the last 50 or 60 years this country has stood by this principle. It is unfortunate that one of the first acts of the new Home Secretary, with little justification and little explanation, is to refuse an entry to this political refugee, who has been driven from country to country in search of a place where he can get restored to health and who can give reasonable guarantees. It remains to the right hon. Gentleman to deny him the right to enter this country. We await his reply with interest.

Mr. DIXEY: I am rather torn, because naturally the principle of giving fair play to any individual appeals to hon. Members on these benches. I find myself in a very difficult position. If my knowledge of the situation is correct M. Trotsky is a gentleman who has repented of his past folly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, at all events, it is immaterial. We have had eloquent speeches by hon. Members on the Liberal benches who have said that hon. Members opposite have always believed in giving fair play to the Soviet administration in Russia, and it seems to me very peculiar that the first act of the Home Secretary is to refuse to allow to enter this country a person whose every act is personified in the present régime of the Soviet Government. I should like to know in what way M. Trotsky differs from the gentleman whom the Government proposed to see when he comes
here to conduct negotiations? It seems to me that what the Home Secretary proposes to do is absolutely inconsistent. If you are prepared to claim friendship and renew negotiations with the Soviet administration in Russia one of the first acts on the part of the Government should be to hold out a friendly hand to a gentleman of such fame as M. Trotsky.
The present Home Secretary has made extreme speeches in the past in favour of the world's democracies, but those speeches were as nothing compared with the speeches that M. Trotsky has made. Surely it would be one of the fairest and most proper things for a Government of the calibre of the present Government to show good will towards future recognition of the Soviets by letting M. Trotsky come in. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is a man whom we know as an individualist who maintains a tradition of giving everyone, apart from party politics, a fair chance in this country. I hope that he will enforce his point on the Government. He has always stood for the recognition of the Russian Government; in fact he loves the sort of administration that is going on there at the present time. I am certain that he is going to bring whatever influence he has to bear on the hard-hearted die-hard Government which he supports.
I would like to have one really coherent reason given why M. Trotsky should be refused admission. We have a reputation for fair play. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were the first to criticise us if permission were refused to a musician of doubtful German antecedents to seek asylum in this country. Here we have a respectable gentleman—at all events respectable in the eyes of hon. Gentlemen opposite—who embodies some of the promises that they made at the Election, a gentleman who has always maintained that the world was made for the workers. Those who know the workers in Russia know that they have had very little of the world up to date. However, would the Home Secretary give a really definite reason for refusing M. Trotsky admission to this country—a reason different from that which he is prepared to accept in admitting an ambassador of the Soviet administration into this country. I see no
difference between a man who comes here under the cloak of semi-respectability because the present Government desires to get something out of him, and a man who has fought in the past for what the present Government say is their ideal, and has been disgraced. Let us have one definite reason for the refusal to admit M. Trotsky.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. clynes): I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was in the House last Thursday, when, at considerable length, I answered a number of questions on this subject. In that answer will be found a set of reasons for the Government's policy upon this question.

Mr. DIXEY: I was in the House and heard no reason given.

Mr. CLYNES: I do not want to make any comment upon the hearing of the hon. Member, but I suggest that he should read the replies that I gave. I shall now try briefly to supplement what I then said and to make some comments upon the course of this Debate. The House will agree that many things have been said in this discussion which are not very closely related to the policy of the Government on this subject. Comment in respect of those matters will not be expected from me. I do not in the least complain of the subject being raised, and I compliment the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) on the form, the manner and the spirit in which he began this discussion. He made an eloquent and earnest appeal to both our intelligence and our sympathy, and I shall endeavour to do justice to his appeal. Though I sympathise very largely with his view, I cannot accept any one of his arguments. I am not quite clear indeed as to which of the two grounds he stood on. Does he want to admit M. Trotsky as a political refugee or as a sick man who can find, in this country alone, the medical treatment of which it is said he is in search? I can only say that we have had from no medical quarter any evidence of any kind as to M. Trotsky's physical condition, and that aspect of the question has not weighed with the Government in reaching their decision. I would say, to begin with, that the Government are asserting no new theory and laying down no new principle whatever in the decision which
they have reached on this subject, and, on reflection, I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton will, when he returns to this subject, see that there is no analogy whatever between the right of free speech and the right of asylum. Free speech is a right possessed by the individual, but the right of preventing the incoming of an alien is the right of the State. I have not spoken of any inconvenience falling upon the Government. I have not said that the Government would be embarrassed. Governments exist to be inconvenienced and to be embarrassed. I have spoken of the embarrassment which would be caused to the country, in our judgment, if, in the circumstances now existing, M. Trotsky were admitted. Nor is there any comparison between the instance we are discussing and the case of Prince Carol. Prince Carol came to this country possessed of papers enabling him to return to other countries when this country was so minded. There is no analogy whatever between Prince Carol's case and that of M. Trotsky.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What about Karl Marx?

Mr. CLYNES: Karl Marx has long been dead, and we are dealing with the present situation. On the question of the right of asylum, I have asserted, and I hope I shall prove, that no violence has been done to that right, and that we are setting up no new principle of any kind. The Home Secretary should be the last man to presume, himself, to state what is the law upon this question, though of course the Government have paid some attention to the legal aspect of this case. The right of asylum is defined in the Encyclopædia Britannica as
the right in international law which a State possesses, by virtue of the principle that every individual State is sole master within its boundaries of allowing fugitives from any country to enter or sojourn in its territory.
The right is therefore that of the State into whose territory an alien seeks to enter, and is not in any sense whatever the right of the immigrant himself. Oppenheim in his standard work on International Law says:
The so-called right of asylum is certainly not a right possessed by the alien to demand that the State into whose territory he has entered with the intention of escaping prosecution in some other State should grant protection and asylum. For
the State need not grant these things. The so-called right of asylum is nothing but the competence of every State … to allow a prosecuted alien to enter, and to remain on, its territory under its protection, and thereby to grant an asylum to him.
The admission of an individual refugee or whole classes of refugees to any country is accordingly not at the will of the refugees but at the will of the State, which is free to judge whether or not it is expedient to admit them and has perfect freedom to act accordingly. We need not, for the purposes of our action and policy, question the good faith of M. Trotsky himself, and while opinions have been indulged somewhat under that head in this short discussion, I do not enter into that field. If it be true that M. Trotsky wished to come to this country for purposes of health and for the undertaking of certain literary work, then I think more persuasive reasons would have to be adduced under that head than have been furnished yet to the country or to the Government from any quarter. M. Trotsky is an extraordinary and a compelling figure, not only in Europe but in the world at large, and in our view his personality would inevitably be the centre of mischief-making and intrigue, which probably would eventually be the cause of serious embarrassment to this country. That might be so, even though he did not desire it himself, and that conclusion has been reached by His Majesty's Government.
No one, I am sure, on this side of the House at least, will desire to take any step which would add difficulty in any form to the endeavours which the Government have now in hand and are prosecuting with a view to establishing better relations between Russia and this country, and that, of course, has been before the mind of the Government in reaching their decision. A point of real force in this Debate has been the point that M. Trotsky does not stand alone. There may be many other Trotsky's. The position in Russia, as we see it, is such that many others formerly of position and power in Russia may also desire to come to Britain or to England, and we have to consider the Trotsky case in relation to those other possibilities that might follow—[An HON. MEMBER: "Tomsky")—Yes, and there are others. The Government feel that should any undesirable
consequences ensue from Trotsky's presence in this country, the Government would certainly be held responsible and would find it very difficult to justify their action to the country. There is no doubt, however willing M. Trotsky himself might be to carry out any undertaking given by him on his own behalf or by other persons on his behalf, that there are in this country many evilly disposed persons whose activities might result in serious mischief if M. Trotsky were to be made a centre of intrigue in this country. I urge that these are adequate reasons for the conclusion reached by the Government, and I say finally that no great principle is at stake and that no great principle has in any sense been damaged by the decision which we have reached. The right of asylum has not been impaired, and in our judgment the decision of the Government is in the best interests of the nation.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I do not want to challenge the definition of the right of asylum given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, because no doubt he is quite correct in defining it as the right of the State, but if he means by the right of asylum that the Government are entitled to let in whom they like, that no claim shall be made upon them to let in anyone who would in any way be inconvenient to them, that no one can object, that they have only to state that it might be awkward and that that is a sufficient answer, that is not the sense, whatever it might be in law, in which the right of asylum has Been claimed as being a peculiar privilege of the British nation which they have afforded to all people. When they have claimed that, they have meant that those who, for one reason or another, could not find a resting place in any other country of the world have been able to find it on these shores. We are told that M. Trotsky might be a centre of intrigue of evilly disposed persons who might take advantage of his presence, but that might be said of every well-known person who, from time to time in our history, has taken refuge in our land. It might be said with the greatest emphasiss that the Emperor of the French, Napoleon III, when he came here, was a man who was likely to be the centre of conspiracy. That has happened again and again with
many people in our history, and if we had refused to admit anybody whose presence might be inconvenient to another State, and incidentally to our own authorities, we should not have gained our illustrious reputation for admitting people even if they were inconvenient to other Powers and to ourselves.
It is that right, and not a mere abstract legal right of asylum, which the Home Secretary has correctly defined, which I should like to vindicate here to-night. I daresay that the presence of this exile would be inconvenient to the Soviet Government. I do not wish to be hostile to them, but I fail to see why we should consider them, any more than we should consider other governments of a similar kind in the past. They are not entitled to any peculiar priviliges in our eyes. They are just entitled to that consideration which we have afforded to other nations in the past, and this has been a privilege which we have afforded to individuals. We have recognised here a right of individual safety and refuge,
sometimes against our own convenience and that of other nations. Surely it is not the place to deny that right in the case of M. Trotsky. It may well be that Members opposite may say that they have suffered more by attacks from the Soviet Government, and M. Trotsky himself, than from anybody else. The language that has been used in those quarters against the Labour party has been as strong as against anybody in this country, and if they were seeking any party advantage they might well say that he was an inconvenient person to admit, but I appeal to them on higher grounds than that, and I believe I can do so with confidence. I appeal to them to disregard any cause of complaint that they may have against M. Trotsky, as we all ought to do, and that they should recognise a right of this individual, and I ask that it shall be vindicated.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes before Eleven o'clock.